Yearly Archives: 2026

SEC Adopts Final Rule Requiring Section 16(a) Reporting for Officers and Directors of Foreign Private Issuers

Liz Walsh is of Counsel and Jennifer Zepralka is a Partner at Mayer Brown. This post is based on their Mayer Brown memorandum.

On February 27, 2026, more than two weeks in advance of the deadline, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) adopted final amendments to certain rules and forms under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) to reflect the requirements of the Holding Foreign Insiders Accountable Act (the “HFIAA”).  The HFIAA, and the SEC’s related rules, subject officers and directors of foreign private issuers (“FPIs”) to the beneficial ownership reporting requirements of Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act, beginning with an obligation to file an initial statement of beneficial ownership on Form 3 no later than March 18, 2026.  Importantly, the SEC’s rule amendments do not go beyond what was required by the HFIAA, providing needed certainty with respect to the scope of this new obligation for insiders of FPIs.  Subsequently, on March 5, 2026, the SEC published an order granting an exemption from beneficial ownership reporting requirements under Section 16(a) for officers and directors of certain FPIs.  This alert addresses the SEC’s rule amendments and the exemptions therefrom, and provides some potential next steps for FPIs to which the reporting requirements will apply.

READ MORE »

Can Extended Equity Vesting Periods Break the Dominance of Performance-Based Compensation?

Subodh Mishra is the Global Head of Communications at ISS STOXX. This post is based on an ISS-Corporate memorandum by Craig Benedict and Daniel King, Compensation & Governance Advisory at ISS-Corporate.

Performance based awards have long been championed by proxy advisors and investors as the best way to align executive incentives with shareholder outcomes. Performance awards with a three-year performance period have emerged as the dominant performance horizon in the U.S. as a result. Despite this broad market consensus, some investors have begun to show support for simpler equity structures that deemphasize performance in favor of longer time-based equity vesting periods.

Norges Bank, the investment arm of Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, is one of the most prominent proponents of an extended equity vesting period. The bank argues that performance-based equity can be expensive and complex and result in higher overall compensation than non-performance-based plans with an extended equity vesting period.

In this paper, ISS-Corporate examines these two different approaches to CEO compensation across Russell 3000 companies, comparing performance, compensation levels, investor and non-investor perceptions and governance data. READ MORE »

Oversight Failures on Workplace Misconduct Can Support Fiduciary Duty Claims

Kerry E. Berchem and Robert G. Lian, Jr. are Partners at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. This post is based on their Akin Gump memorandum and is part of the Delaware law series; links to other posts in the series are available here.

Overview

In a precedent-setting derivative decision, the Delaware Court of Chancery held that a board of directors’ and senior officers’ failure to respond in good faith to clear red flags of workplace sexual misconduct may give rise to viable breach of fiduciary duty claims under Delaware law. In an opinion penned by Chancellor Kathleen J. McCormick, the court denied motions to dismiss claims against certain directors and officers of eXp World Holdings Inc., ruling that the plaintiffs had pled sufficient facts to support allegations that the company’s fiduciaries had breached their oversight obligations and that the chief executive officer (CEO) had breached his duty of loyalty by concealing information and retaining employees implicated in the alleged misconduct. Los Angeles City Employees’ Retirement System v. Glenn Sanford, et al., C.A. No. 2024-0998-KSM (Del. Ch. Jan. 16, 2026).

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: March 20-26, 2026


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of March 20-26, 2026

Remarks by Chair Atkins on the SEC’s Regulatory Philosophy and Policy Agenda


Remarks by Commissioner Uyeda on Investor Choice and the Limits of SEC Regulation


Tracking Shareholder Proposals and Company Exclusions: Pre-Season Observations


Global Corporate Governance Trends for 2026


Targeted Corporate Philanthropy


Global Trends in Women’s Corporate Leadership 2026


Five Key Considerations for Proxy Season



No Loopholes for AI: Putting Legal Guardrails on Your Company’s Use of AI


From Iran to Taylor Swift: Informed Trading in Prediction Markets


Proxy Voting Outlook: Spotlight Turns to Governance in Transition Year


Will the Iran War Become the Poison Pill for Proxy Contests This Season?




Preserving Shareholder Rights Protects Workers, Retirees, and the Integrity of American Capital Markets

Elizabeth Steiner is the Oregon State Treasurer.

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair Paul Atkins recently reiterated his preference to loosen corporate accountability standards at a conference hosted by the Council of Institutional Investors. As the fiduciary for a state pension fund, I believe that weakening shareholder engagement creates risks that beneficiaries and state governments cannot afford.

Stories of CEOs raking in multimillion-dollar bonuses while middle-class workers struggle to pay rent or save for retirement have become all too familiar. Those disparities didn’t arise overnight but they have sharpened investor and public scrutiny of corporate governance. That’s why the federal administration’s effort to weaken shareholder rights is so concerning. Shareholders must have a voice in corporate governance given the capital they have invested in American businesses.

As Oregon State Treasurer I am charged with managing a diversified institutional portfolio of more than $148 billion in assets under management, including the Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund (OPERF), one of the largest public pension funds in the country.  Treasury staff invest these assets to achieve strong, risk-adjusted returns for beneficiaries. Public employees’ and retirees’ financial security depends on the long-term health of the assets we help steward.

READ MORE »

How Do Corporate Managers Invest in AI and Green Technologies Based on Market Feedback?

Jie (Jack) He is a Professor of Finance at the University of Georgia. This post is based on a recent paper by Professor He, Sean Cao, Associate Professor of Accounting at the University of Maryland, Itay Goldstein, Professor of Finance at the University of Pennsylvania, and Yabo Zhao, Assistant Professor of Finance at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen.

The emergence of new technologies confronts firms with difficult decisions on resource allocation. Contemplating investments in these emerging technologies, firm managers have to assess the opportunities in a constantly changing environment without past records to learn from and with limited models of the costs and benefits involved. In recent years, we have seen two such emerging technologies – artificial intelligence (AI) and green (i.e., climate/environment-related) technologies – rising to huge prominence and increasingly capturing the attention of firm managers. How do they decide whether and how to invest in these technologies? What sources of information do they rely on for such decisions? Having better answers to these questions is crucial not only for understanding firms’ investment behaviors but also for understanding modern societies’ technological transformation more broadly. After all, the collective decisions of different firms determine the extent of emerging technology investment and the scope of economic transformation that could follow.

In this paper, we look at a prominent source of information – the stock market – and investigate how it has been used in the process of emerging technology investment. Financial markets have been found to be a powerful source of information: They aggregate the opinions of a diverse body of investors, are forward-looking, and respond rapidly to announcements and economic developments. A growing strand of literature has argued and shown that informational feedback from the financial markets can help guide the decision-making of corporate managers (see, e.g., Bond, Edmans, and Goldstein (2012) and Goldstein (2023)). Building on these insights, we examine how firms use information from the stock market when deciding on their investments in AI and green technologies. READ MORE »

Will the Iran War Become the Poison Pill for Proxy Contests This Season?

Kai H.E. Liekefett and Derek Zaba are Partners at Sidley Austin LLP. This post is based on their Sidley memorandum.

Brief teaser: Geopolitical shocks directly alter the risk calculus for shareholder activists. This Update lays out factors at play in activists’ decisions as proxy season meets the Iran conflict, whether activism is likely to decline, and approaches companies should take.

Escalating hostilities in the Middle East have injected a new layer of geopolitical risk into already fragile capital markets. The effects of oil price volatility, supply chain disruption, cyberthreats, and heightened regulatory scrutiny are rippling across industries. As with tariffs last year, geopolitical shocks do not affect only a company’s operating performance; they also directly alter the risk calculus for shareholder activists. While the ultimate geopolitical trajectory remains uncertain, the immediate question for Corporate America is more tactical: Will the Iran war chill proxy contests this season?

READ MORE »

Proxy Voting Outlook: Spotlight Turns to Governance in Transition Year

Bob Herr is a Senior Vice President and Director of Corporate Governance, Landon Shea is an Investment Stewardship Associate, and Cole Moore is an Investment Stewardship Analyst and Engagement Lead at AllianceBernstein. This post is based on their AllianceBernstein memorandum.

What you need to know

The agenda is being reset for US shareholder meetings in 2026. Regulatory shifts have led to a steep decline in overall shareholder proposals while governance issues are becoming the biggest battleground. As companies gain new power to block shareholder proposals, investors may turn to other routes to make their voices heard. Research-driven independence and a focus on governance fundamentals can guide investors through a changing environment.

–36%
decline in total shareholder proposals for S&P 1500 companies in 2025
41%
rate of support for shareholder proposals on governance issues in 2025
14%
rate of support for shareholder proposals on environmental and social issues in 2025
Bob Herr | Director of Corporate Governance

Change is in the air as the 2026 US proxy voting season begins. Regulatory shifts and new voting dynamics will challenge investment firms to remain principled in their approach to stewardship.

The proxy pendulum is swinging. After several years in which environmental and social issues gained prominence, governance matters such as director elections and executive compensation have reentered the spotlight.

This year, ballots will be cast amid significant regulatory and legal moves. Proxy advisory firms are under intense scrutiny while state and federal laws and enforcement actions have added layers of complexity to governance decision making. We believe investment firms should enter proxy season with eyes wide open: aware of what’s changing yet guided by a materiality-based framework to vote independently with conviction.

READ MORE »

From Iran to Taylor Swift: Informed Trading in Prediction Markets

Joshua Mitts is David J. Greenwald Professor of Law at Columbia University and Moran Ofir is a Professor of Law and Finance at the University of Haifa. This post is based on their recent paper.

The New Frontier of Insider Trading

In the hours before the February 28, 2026 U.S.-Israeli strike on Iran—one of the most closely guarded military operations in recent history—six newly created Polymarket wallets collectively earned approximately $1.2 million by purchasing ‘Yes’ shares in the ‘US strikes Iran by February 28?’ contract at prices as low as $0.10. One account, operating under the handle ‘Magamyman,’ placed its first trade seventy-one minutes before the news broke, when markets implied only a 17% probability of a strike. When those markets resolved in the affirmative, the account’s profits totalled approximately $553,000.

This episode is striking because it is hardly the first time this has occurred. Two months earlier, a pseudonymous Polymarket account called ‘Burdensome-Mix’ earned roughly $485,000 from a $38,500 investment in contracts tied to the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro—placing its largest trades just hours before a covert military operation was publicly announced. Israeli authorities separately indicted a civilian and an IDF reservist for allegedly using classified wartime information to profit on Polymarket. A trader earned over $1 million by predicting with uncanny precision the results of Google’s proprietary Year in Search rankings. Another appeared to have advance knowledge of OpenAI’s browser launch. And a user named ‘romanticpaul’ purchased Taylor Swift engagement contracts aggressively in the days before Swift publicly announced her engagement to Travis Kelce.

These cases are not merely colorful anecdotes. They represent a systematic challenge to the legal and regulatory frameworks that govern the use of inside information in connection with trading in traditional instruments like stocks, bonds and futures. Our paper, From Iran to Taylor Swift: Informed Trading in Prediction Markets, presents the first systematic empirical and legal study of this phenomenon.

READ MORE »

No Loopholes for AI: Putting Legal Guardrails on Your Company’s Use of AI

Don L. Vieira is a Partner and Nicola Kerr-Shaw is a Counsel at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. This post is based on their Skadden memorandum.

Key Points

  • While no comprehensive AI regulatory framework has been enacted in the U.S., the use of AI is governed by many existing laws, with new laws coming into force across the U.S. In their oversight roles, boards need to be aware of the spectrum of laws that may govern their companies.
  • Existing laws and their application to companies need to be re-examined in light of AI advances, and new laws will need to be assessed against a business’s AI needs and ambitions.
  • With the rapid and prolific expansion of AI, companies need to implement agile and strategic compliance frameworks to keep pace with the business, and allow valuable and limited legal resources to be focused on those AI tools presenting the highest risk.

As board members, you’ve likely heard conflicting messages about artificial intelligence (AI) regulation in the U.S. Some claim that AI is simply not regulated in the U.S. The truth is more nuanced, and more immediately important, than you might think.

While it’s true Congress hasn’t passed sweeping AI-specific legislation, your company’s use of AI is almost certainly regulated already. Here’s why: The law doesn’t care how you break the rules, only that you broke them.

READ MORE »

Page 40 of 56
1 … 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 … 56