Monthly Archives: July 2026

Disclosure Schedules are a Waste of Money

Melissa Sawyer is Global Co-Head of M&A at Sullivan & Cromwell LLP.

This article is the sequel to the author’s previous article entitled Merger Agreements are Too Long.

In public company M&A deals, the target’s disclosure schedules typically consist of lists of facts about the target and its businesses.  Most of the listed items are either exceptions to detailed representations and warranties (the “reps”) or information specifically required by the reps to be listed out.  For example, disclosure schedules might include lists of all of the target’s registered trademarks or descriptions of all of the target’s pending litigation matters.  The resulting schedules can be hundreds of pages long and add little value from a risk allocation perspective for either buyers or targets.  Dealmakers should eliminate this burdensome “tree-killer” from the public company M&A playbook.

READ MORE »

International Sustainability Reporting – Divergence and Equivalence

John Young is a Counsel, Ulysses Smith is an ESG Senior Advisor, and Alfie Scott is an Associate at Debevoise & Plimpton LLP. This post is based on their Debevoise memorandum.

Since the first application of the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (“CSRD”) to companies in 2024, two projects have been underway to produce detailed sustainability reporting standards: (i) the EU’s Sustainability Reporting Standards, with separate standards for EU companies (the “ESRS”) and groups with non-EU parents (the “N-ESRS”) reporting under CSRD and (ii) the International Sustainability Standards Board’s (“ISSB”) standards published by the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation. As states around the world adopt sustainability reporting standards by reference to the ISSB standards, either by directly adopting those standards or by producing local standards derived from ISSB, world-wide groups will produce sustainability reports by reference to more than one set of standards.[1]

States and regulators now have the opportunity to address the divergence that has developed internationally. In this In Depth, we discuss the challenges raised by different sustainability standards around the world and the steps that states and authorities are taking to develop an equivalence or passporting system.

READ MORE »

What Sustainability Disclosures Actually Disclose

Hajin Kim is an Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School. This post is based on a recent working paper by Prof. Kim; Ningzi Li, an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Organizations and Strategy at the University of Chicago; Ronen Feldman, a Professor of Data Science at Hebrew University; Yun Liu, a Master’s student in Computer Science at the University of Chicago; and Yuval Feldman, the Mori Lazarof Professor of Legal Research at Bar-Ilan University.

Society has invested heavily in voluntary corporate sustainability reporting. In theory, these disclosures do real work: they could help civil-society groups, analysts, and other stakeholders hold firms accountable for externalities that regulation leaves untouched, and they could help markets price risks that financial statements miss. In practice, critics dismiss the reports as mere marketing. They are often unassured and therefore not credible, not comparable across firms or over time, vague rather than verifiable, and cherry-picked to shield bad news.

An entire industry has grown up around fixing these disclosures. Nonprofits and shareholders press companies to say more. Standard-setters have built an alphabet soup of voluntary frameworks, including GRI, SASB, TCFD, CDP, and SBTi. Firms increasingly pay for external assurance, and newer mandatory regimes often piggyback on the voluntary frameworks. But this entire enterprise has proceeded without basic facts about what the reports actually contain, or whether the frameworks firms adopt track better disclosure. The reason is simple: reading thousands of heterogeneous PDFs at scale has been prohibitively expensive.

READ MORE »

Chancery Finds Potential Liability for Blocking Company Financings Despite Contractual Veto Rights

Gail Weinstein is a Senior Counsel, Philip Richter is a Partner and a Co-Head of the M&A and Private Equity Practice, 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, Steven J. Steinman, Randi Lally, and Colum J. Weiden, and is part of the Delaware Law Series; links to other posts in the series are available here.

In Zync v. Porsche et al (May 29, 2026), the Delaware Court of Chancery, at the pleading stage of litigation, declined to dismiss claims against Porsche, a 5% stockholder in  Zync, Inc. (the “Company”), and Porsche’s designee on the Company’s board of directors (the “Porsche Director”), relating to their blocking the Company’s critically needed financings, although Porsche had a contractual veto right over the financings. Allegedly, Porsche’s Director, whose approval was required for the financings, refused to act without Porsche’s prior approval; Porsche delayed providing, or refused to provide, approval for the financings; and, as a result, the Company was unable to secure funding and had to shut down.

READ MORE »

The SEC’s Registered Offering Reform Proposal: Expanding Access to Public Capital Markets

Adam Johnson and Drew Valentine are Partners at White & Case LLP. This post is based on their White & Case memorandum.

Over the coming months, the SEC’s proposal to overhaul the registered offering framework could be another important piece of the SEC’s agenda to simplify its public offering requirements and to encourage more companies to access the capital markets. The proposal, which was voted for unanimously by the SEC on May 19, 2026 (the “Proposal,” Release No. 33-11418, File No. S7-2026-17), could be the most significant overhaul of the registered offering framework in more than two decades and seeks to provide many public companies with a more efficient and cost-effective path to raise capital in the public markets than is currently available, and rests on the theory that an issuer’s timely and current SEC reporting is more important to ensuring that adequate disclosure is made than the issuer’s public float or length of reporting history.

READ MORE »

Comment Letter on the SEC’s Proposal to Replace Quarterly Reporting with Semiannual Reporting

Donald A. Zakrowski is Senior Vice President, Finance, and Chief Accounting Officer at Eli Lilly & Co. This post is based on his SEC comment letter.

Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”) appreciates the opportunity to submit comments in response to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (the “Commission”) proposed rule on Semiannual Reporting, released on May 5, 2026. Lilly is engaged in the discovery, development, manufacturing, marketing, and sales of pharmaceutical products worldwide. Founded in 1876 and listed on the New York Stock Exchange for over 70 years, Lilly has a long history of commitment to transparent and timely disclosure to its shareholders and the investing public. We commend the Commission for its thoughtful initiative to modernize the financial reporting landscape for Exchange Act reporting companies.

READ MORE »

Statement by Chair Atkins on Regulation E-Delivery

Paul S. Atkins is the Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This post is based on his recent statement. 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.

Today, the Commission took an important step toward allowing the financial services industry to harness technology for the benefit of everyday American investors. By proposing to permit electronic delivery (e-delivery) to become the default method for issuers, market intermediaries, and others to communicate with investors, we are taking another stride toward a regulatory framework suitable for the modern era, a key pillar of my agenda.

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: July 10-16, 2026


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of July 10-16, 2026




Recent Decisions Amplify Delaware Law on Forum Selection Provisions and Bylaws







SEC Chairman Signals Reassessment of Rule 14a-8 Regime


Quarterly SEC Round-Up – Q2


2026 Say-on-Pay Trends


2026 Say-on-Pay Trends

AJ Patterson is an Associate Partner, Rachael Harrison is a Director, and Robert Kalb is a Director on the Global Corporate Governance team at Aon plc. This post is based on their Aon plc memorandum.

Say-on-Pay outcomes in the 2026 proxy season have remained broadly favorable, continuing a multi-year trend of strong shareholder support and limited opposition. Fewer companies have experienced low support or failed votes, reflecting generally aligned pay and performance outcomes across much of the market. These results have been supported, in part, by strong equity market performance in 2025.

At the same time, investors and proxy advisors continue to scrutinize company-specific compensation decisions, with certain factors continuing to drive lower support levels. This has been particularly relevant over the past year, as compensation committees have navigated ongoing macroeconomic volatility and sought ways to reflect unexpected circumstances outside management’s control (such as the effects of tariffs) fairly within compensation program design and payout determinations.

READ MORE »

Quarterly SEC Round-Up – Q2

Igor Rogovoy and Kristina Trauger are Partners and Mas Harntha is a Senior Associate at Linklaters LLP. This post is based on a Linklaters memorandum by Mr. Rogovoy, Ms. Trauger, Ms. Harntha, Mike Bienenfeld, and Jeffrey Cohen.

Major Reforms on the horizon

Proposed move to semiannual reporting

In May 2026, the SEC proposed allowing US domestic reporting companies to choose between quarterly reports on Form 10-Q or semiannual reports on a new Form 10-S. Companies would make their election via a check-box on the Form 10-K cover page, committing to the chosen frequency for the remainder of that fiscal year, while newly public companies would elect on their registration statement cover page. The proposal would not change the foreign private issuer (“FPI”) reporting regime, which the SEC may tackle in connection with last year’s FPI eligibility concept release.

Proposed reform of public offering and reporting regimes

The SEC also issued two other major proposals in May 2026, focused on reforming filer status and registered offerings, which have the potential to significantly alter the US public company offering and reporting regime. The filer status proposal would create a minimum five-year IPO on-ramp during which all new US domestic registrants, regardless of public float, are provided significant accommodations, including an exemption from the auditor attestation on internal controls over financial reporting requirement. The proposal would also reform the filer status categories such that most public companies would be deemed “non-accelerated filers” with extended deadlines for filing annual and quarterly reports. Further, the registered offering proposal would significantly expand the category of issuers eligible to use Form S-3 and rely on certain “well-known seasoned issuer” benefits, which would mean smaller public companies would have access to shelf registration for the first time in decades. As proposed, however, none of these changes would apply to FPIs.

READ MORE »

Page 3 of 6
1 2 3 4 5 6