Monthly Archives: July 2026

Post-Doctoral and Doctoral Corporate Governance Fellowships for Individuals with Legal Training


More from:

The Program on Corporate Governance at Harvard Law School (HLS) is pleased to announce that it is seeking applications from highly qualified candidates who are interested in working with the Program as Post-Doctoral or Doctoral Corporate Governance Fellows.

Candidates should have a law degree from a law school in the United States or abroad. Candidates still pursuing a doctoral degree are eligible so long as they will have completed their program’s coursework requirements by the time they begin their fellowship period.

During the term of their appointment, Fellows will be in residence at HLS. They will be required to devote part of their time to work on research tasks assigned by the Program, depending on their skills, interests, and Program needs, but will be able to spend significant time on projects initiated by them. The position will provide a competitive fellowship salary and Harvard University benefits.

Applicants should have an interest in corporate governance and in academic or policy research in this field. Former Fellows of the Program currently teach in many leading law schools in the U.S. and abroad (e.g., Scott Hirst (BU), Robert Jackson (NYU), Marcel Kahan (NYU), Kobi Kastiel (Tel-Aviv), Yaron Nili (Duke), Roberto Tallarita (Harvard) and Holger Spamann (Harvard)).

Interested candidates should submit a CV, a writing sample, and a cover letter to the coordinator of the Program, at [email protected]. The cover letter should describe the candidate’s experience, reasons for seeking the position, career plans, and the period during which they would like to work with the Program.

Applications are considered on a rolling basis, and the start date is flexible. Candidates should apply only if they seek to stay at the Program for two years. All personnel appointments at the Program are for one year, but the appointment period is generally extendable for additional one-year period/s (subject to business needs and satisfactory performance).

Audit Committee Considerations for SEC’s Proposal on Semiannual Reporting

Kathy Nieland is a Partner, and Tracey-Lee Brown and Gregory Johnson are Directors at the Governance Insights Center, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. This post is based on their PwC memorandum.

What the audit committee needs to know

On May 5, the SEC issued a rule proposal that would provide an optional semiannual reporting framework as an alternative to the existing quarterly reporting framework. The optional semiannual reporting framework would be available to any registrant currently required to file a quarterly report on Form 10-Q.

Form 10-S would replace Form 10-Q for semiannual filers

A company that elects the semiannual reporting framework (a semiannual filer) would forgo filing quarterly reports on Form 10-Q (for the first, second, and third quarters of its fiscal year) and would instead file one interim report covering the first half of the fiscal year on new Form 10-S. Form 10-S would require the same information that is currently required by Form 10-Q, except that the financial information (and related disclosures) would cover the fiscal six-month period instead of a quarter. Unlike Form 10-Q, which requires presentation of both quarter-to-date and year-to-date periods, Form 10-S would only require presentation of the year-to-date (i.e. semiannual) period, though voluntary presentation of quarterly information would be permitted. The financial statements in Form 10-S would be required to be (1) prepared under US GAAP, (2) reviewed by the auditor, and (3) data tagged using Inline XBRL.

READ MORE »

Court of Chancery Imposes Sanctions for Spoliation of Signal Messages

Mallory Tosch Hoggatt, Alan Goudiss, and Jeffrey Hoschander are Partners at A&O Shearman. This post is based on an A&O Shearman memorandum by Ms. Tosch Hoggatt, Mr. Goudiss, Mr. Hoschander, Henessy Guerrero, and Jessie Donegan, and is part of the Delaware law series; links to other posts in the series are available here.

On May 26, 2026, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery imposed sanctions for the spoliation of evidence in a fiduciary duty case arising from the merger of a wrestling entertainment company (the “Company”) with a global sports and entertainment company (the “Acquiror”). In re World Wrestling Ent., Inc. Merger Litig., C.A. No. 2023-1166-JTL (Del. Ch. May 26, 2026). The Court found that the Company’s controlling stockholder and senior officers—at a minimum, recklessly— destroyed Signal chats and messages after receiving legal hold notices and that plaintiffs were prejudiced thereby because “context suggests” that the lost evidence was relevant. As a result, the Court ordered a shift of the burden of proof from plaintiffs to defendants by presuming the truth of a limited set of facts in favor of plaintiffs, subject to rebuttal only by clear and convincing evidence.

READ MORE »

Page 4 of 4
1 2 3 4