Monthly Archives: June 2026

Shareholder Activism – 2026 Mid-Year Review

Posted by Ken Mantel and Meagan Reda, Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP, on
Wednesday, June 10, 2026
, , , , , , , ,
More from: , ,

Ken Mantel and Meagan Reda are Partners at Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP.

A strong 2025 for shareholder activism has carried forward into the first half of 2026, with a variety of significant activist engagements and campaigns this proxy season. Activist campaigns have largely focused on operational, strategic, capital allocation, and governance-related improvements, with new activity in the M&A and IPO markets expected to impact activist demands and the corporate governance landscape overall. Settlement agreements remain a key means for activists to change the composition of boards of directors, and C-suite turnover prior to and following campaigns reinforces the importance of succession planning and accountability in the boardroom. The evolving regulatory environment, geopolitical uncertainty, and a shift in institutional investor engagement have also impacted this proxy season, with the growing importance of AI also playing a significant role.

We discuss a number of key developments and themes we’ve seen so far this year, and what we expect over the rest of the proxy season, below.

READ MORE »

The Current Strategic Landscape for Investment Stewardship

Posted by Rickard Nilsson, Glass, Lewis & Co., on
Tuesday, June 9, 2026
, , , , ,
More from: ,

Rickard Nilsson is Director of Stewardship at Glass, Lewis & Co. This post is based on his Glass Lewis memorandum.

Key Takeaways

  • Glass Lewis 2026 Investment Stewardship Survey respondents report that their engagement priorities are anchored in climate change and governance.
  • Regional patterns show European investors emphasizing sustainability topics more strongly, while North American investors place greater weight on traditional governance issues.
  • A hybrid approach to stewardship has become the dominant operating model, balancing broad baseline expectations with targeted company-specific engagement.
  • Engagement prioritization reflects a multi-factor approach, with policy alignment most common but investors also weighing factors such as materiality, ownership levels, and resource capacity.
  • Efforts to improve stewardship quality are framed around stronger links to investment decision-making, better prioritization and research, credible escalation strategies, and more effective outcomes reporting.

READ MORE »

Too Liable To Regulate: The Hidden Costs of Fossil Fuel Decommissioning and Remediation

Posted by Joshua Macey (Yale Law School), Terra Baer (Yale Law School), and Pranjal Drall (Yale Law School & Yale School of Management), on
Tuesday, June 9, 2026
, , , , ,
More from: , , ,

Joshua Macey is a Professor of Law at Yale Law School, Terra Baer holds a JD from Yale Law School, and Pranjal Drall is a JD-PhD candidate in Financial Economics at Yale University. This post is based on their recent paper.

Too Liable To Regulate, forthcoming in the California Law Review, documents how environmental cleanup and financial assurance rules have produced firms that are “too liable to regulate.” This phrase refers to firms that hold such significant environmental liability that it deters regulators from taking enforcement actions. Regulators, aware that an enforcement action could force too-liable-to-regulate firms into liquidation, decline to enforce reclamation laws, seemingly out of concern that doing so would lead to abandoned wells and mines and thus leave taxpayers and regulators responsible for environmental remediation. This is a version of the judgment-proof problem.

To analyze this phenomenon, we compiled every state and federal coal-reclamation and onshore P&A law, assembled twenty years of bonding and production data for most onshore gas wells and coal mines, and obtained asset-level information through open-records requests. The article then examines two firms—Diversified Energy and Indemnity National—as case studies of a broader pattern in extractive industries. Once environmental liability exceeds a firm’s ability to pay, it stops deterring harm. Firms keep unproductive assets limping along to defer cleanup, and well-capitalized companies sell their dirtiest assets to operators that cannot afford to remediate them. Regulators respond by reducing enforcement, as that would risk pushing a distressed firm into liquidation, leaving abandoned and coal mines and gas wells and potentially forcing taxpayers to bear the costs of environmental remediation.

READ MORE »

Excessive Executive Compensation: Investor Guidance

Posted by Matthew Illian and Rosanna Landis Weaver, ICCR & United Church Funds, on
Tuesday, June 9, 2026
, , , , ,
More from: , ,

Matthew Illian is the Director of Responsible Investing at United Church Funds, and Rosanna Landis Weaver is a Consultant at the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR). This post is based on their ICCR & United Church Funds report.

Introduction

For decades, ICCR members have called attention to the widening gap between corporate executive pay and the compensation of everyone else. In recent decades, the average CEO of the largest U.S. company has made around 300 times as much as the median worker. This gap highlights a fundamental imbalance in how companies distribute resources, with outsized executive compensation awarded alongside wages that often fail to meet the basic needs of most employees.

This wasn’t always the case. In 1965, CEOs were paid just 21 times as much as a typical worker.

READ MORE »

Tracking Shareholder Proposals and Company Exclusions: Mid-Season Observations

Posted by Courteney Keatinge and Dimitri Zagoroff, Glass, Lewis & Co., on
Monday, June 8, 2026
, , , , ,
More from: , ,

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 »

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

Posted by David Cicero (Auburn University), Mo Shen (Auburn University), and Jaideep Shenoy (University of Connecticut School of Business), on
Monday, June 8, 2026
, , , , ,
More from: , ,

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

Posted by Michael Delikat, Lauren Goldsmith, and Hayden Goudy, Orrick, on
Monday, June 8, 2026
, , , , , ,
More from: , , ,

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

Posted by Jen Sisson and Jakub Brejdak, ICGN, on
Sunday, June 7, 2026
, , , , ,
More from: , ,

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

Posted by Gail Weinstein, Philip Richter, and Steven Epstein, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, on
Saturday, June 6, 2026
, , , , , ,
More from: , , , , , ,

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

Posted by David A. Bell and Wendy Grasso, Fenwick & West LLP, on
Friday, June 5, 2026
, , , , , ,
More from: , ,

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 »

Page 5 of 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7