Yearly Archives: 2026

26 Trends Affecting Capital Markets in 2026

Anna Pinedo is a Partner at Mayer Brown LLP. This post is based on her Mayer Brown memorandum.

On this blog, we have commented quite a number of times regarding a number of trends affecting our capital markets—many of which have been a factor since the early 2000s and which have become more pronounced since the adoption of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and related reforms.  For example, we have noted the decline in the number of U.S. public companies, and the rising significance of the private markets.  A report earlier this fall in the New York Times DealBook (Oct. 25, 2025) notes that private assets have more than doubled over 12 years, to $22 trillion in 2024 from $9.7 trillion in 2012.  The article notes that companies are staying private longer, waiting an average of 16 years to go public, 33 percent longer than a decade ago.  Since the change in administration, enhanced retail access to the private markets, or to the perceived attractive returns associated with private market assets, has been a focus of policymaker attention.  Of course, this is but one of several important conversations that likely will continue to influence markets in this coming year—below, we expand on this, and share some additional perspectives (all from just one lawyer’s, not banker’s, vantage point) on other trends.

READ MORE »

2025 ESG Wrap-Up and 2026 Outlook

Simon Toms and Kate Jackson-McGill KC are Partners, and Justin Lau is an Associate at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. This post is based on a Skadden memorandum by Mr. Toms, Ms. Jackson-McGill KC, Mr. Lau, Jonathan Benson, Abigail B. Reeves, and Leesha Curtis.

Executive Summary

  • What’s new: Key ESG developments in late 2025 include the EU’s final proposals regarding corporate sustainability due diligence, simplified European sustainability reporting, delayed timing for the EU Deforestation Regulation, a landmark liability ruling and new UK legislation governing carbon border adjustments.
  • Why it matters: The changes in the EU significantly reduce reporting burdens, narrow liability and compliance scope, and introduce new requirements, impacting EU and non-EU companies, financial institutions and businesses with global supply chains.
  • What to do next: Companies should (i) review updated thresholds, reporting exemptions and compliance timelines; (ii) assess applicability to their operations; and (iii) prepare for new or revised ESG reporting, due diligence and carbon border adjustment requirements.

READ MORE »

Letter in Response to SEC Changes to the Rule 14a-8 Shareholder Proposal Process

Jen Sisson is the CEO and Severine Neervoort is the Global Policy Director at ICGN. This post is based on their letter to the Chairman of the SEC, Paul Atkins.

The International Corporate Governance Network (ICGN) would like to offer its perspective on the SEC Division of Corporation Finance statement, published on November 17, 2025, regarding no-action requests under Rule 14a-8.1

Led by investors responsible for assets under management of over US$ 90 trillion, ICGN promotes high standards of corporate governance globally. Our members – both asset owners and asset managers – have significant exposure to the U.S. market. We are deeply concerned by the Division of Corporation Finance’s announcement that it will not substantively respond to most Rule 14a-8 no-action requests for the 2025–2026 proxy season.

We are concerned that the narrowing of shareholder proposal rights appears part of a broader shift that reduces the avenues through which investors can engage with portfolio companies – compounded by recent changes to interpretations of Section 13D and 13G. Taken together, these developments risk adding tensions between company owners and management, and diminish investor confidence in U.S. corporate governance standards and thereby weaken the appeal of U.S. capital markets globally.

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: January 16-22, 2026


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of January 16-22, 2026

Executive Security: The Perk to Watch


Boards Enjoy Increased Investor Support as Markets Deliver and DEI Pressure Fades


Section 16(a) Insider Reporting: Legislation Ends Foreign Private Issuer Exemption


Harvard Corporate Faculty Excels in SSRN’s 2025 Citation Rankings


M&A Predictions and Guidance for 2026


ISS and Glass Lewis 2026 Policy Updates


SEC Enforcement: 2025 Year in Review


2026 Global Principles for Benchmark Policies


President Trump’s Executive Order on Proxy Advisors: The Potential Pros and Cons for Companies


Say-on-Pay 2025 Proxy Voting Review of Large Asset Managers


Say-on-Pay 2025 Proxy Voting Review of Large Asset Managers

Matthew Illian is the Director of Responsible Investing at United Church Funds. This post is based on a United Church Funds report.

The Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) and many of its members, including United Church Funds, have long championed the alignment of compensation incentives with long-term, sustainable value, well before the Dodd-Frank law mandated Say on Pay votes. The largest asset managers in the world also state the importance of designing executive compensation packages with long-term sustainable growth in mind. But new research commissioned by ICCR reveals that support for executive compensation varies widely between asset managers. These differences carry significant implications for asset owners and asset managers given the concentration of voting power in a small number of U.S. firms and the growing scrutiny of executive compensation design.

READ MORE »

President Trump’s Executive Order on Proxy Advisors: The Potential Pros and Cons for Companies

Martha Carter is the Vice Chairman & Head of Governance and Sustainability, and Sydney Carlock is a Managing Director at Teneo. This post is based on a Teneo report by Ms. Carter, Ms. Carlock, Matt Filosa, Sean Quinn, Faten Alqaseer, and Diana Lee.

On December 11, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order aimed at reducing the influence of proxy advisors (specifically ISS and Glass Lewis) by directing the SEC, FTC and Department of Labor to conduct sweeping reviews of the rules governing the industry.

The administration argues that proxy advisor policies, particularly those related to ESG and DE&I issues (left undefined in the order), advance non-financial goals that conflict with investor fiduciary duties. The order builds on a series of federal and state actions intended to curb the influence of proxy advisors and large asset managers, dismantle stakeholder capitalism and reinforce that “ESG” issues are not financially material. These actions include revised SEC 13G/D guidance, congressional hearings, the SEC’s withdrawal from the shareholder-proposal no-action process, scrutiny from several state attorneys general and Texas SB 2337.

Proxy advisors have already begun to respond to pressure, with ISS introducing a recommendation-free research option for its investor clients and Glass Lewis planning to eliminate its house policy beginning in 2027. Even so, the executive order could spur far more significant changes; its scope and multi-agency approach make it one of the strongest challenges to proxy advisors to date. The order sets no timeline, and legal challenges are likely. While some impact may be felt in the upcoming proxy season, the most significant effects will likely unfold over a longer horizon. Below, we offer our analysis of the executive order, including pros and cons for corporations as they navigate the 2026 proxy season and beyond.

READ MORE »

2026 Global Principles for Benchmark Policies

John Roe and Amra Balic are Global Co-Heads of Investment Stewardship (BIS) at BlackRock. This post is based on a BlackRock publication.

Introduction to BlackRock Investment Stewardship

At BlackRock, investment stewardship serves as a link between our clients and the companies they invest in and is one of the ways we fulfill our fiduciary responsibilities as an asset manager on their behalf. BlackRock offers a range of proxy voting policies to reflect clients’ individual investment choices and goals.

BlackRock Investment Stewardship (BIS) is responsible for stewardship activities in relation to clients’ assets invested in index equity strategies. BIS takes a long-term approach in our stewardship efforts, reflecting the investment horizons of the majority of our clients. BIS does this through:

  1. Engaging with the boards and management of companies in which clients are invested to deepen our understanding of a company’s business model, including how they are overseeing material business risks and opportunities over time, and to help inform our voting on behalf of clients.[1]
  2. Voting at shareholder meetings on management and shareholder proposals for clients who have authorized BIS to vote on their behalf.
  3. Contributing to industry dialogue on stewardship to share our perspectives on matters that may impact our clients’ investments.
  4. Reporting on our activities to inform clients about our stewardship efforts on their behalf through a range of publications on our website and direct client communications.

This document provides an overarching explanation of the principles that guide our approach to engaging and voting on corporate governance matters and other material risks and opportunities under BIS’ Benchmark Policies. The BIS Benchmark Policies – which are comprised of the BIS Global Principles, regional voting guidelines, and Engagement Priorities – apply to clients’ assets invested through index equity strategies, take a financial materiality-based approach, and are focused solely on advancing clients’ long-term financial interests.[2]

READ MORE »

SEC Enforcement: 2025 Year in Review

Harris Fischman, Lorin Reisner, and Jessica Carey are Partners at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. This post is based on a Paul Weiss memorandum by Mr. Fischman, Mr. Reisner, Ms. Carey, Matthew Kaminer, and Hunter Kolon.

During this transition year at the Securities and Exchange Commission, new leadership signaled policy and priority changes. In this Year in Review, we highlight important takeaways for business leaders and in-house counsel from the Enforcement Division’s activities in 2025 and emerging SEC enforcement practices and priorities under the leadership of Chairman Paul Atkins and Enforcement Director Judge Margaret Ryan.

READ MORE »

ISS and Glass Lewis 2026 Policy Updates

Shaun Bisman is a Partner and Gray Broaddus is an Analyst at Compensation Advisory Partners. This post is based on their CAP memorandum.

Both ISS and Glass Lewis recently released updates to their 2026 pay-for-performance models and proxy voting guidelines, which will apply to annual meetings held on or after February 1, 2026. This article outlines updates to executive and non-employee director compensation and director election voting recommendations that could affect proxy advisory firms’ voting recommendations for the 2026 proxy season.

READ MORE »

M&A Predictions and Guidance for 2026

Ethan Klingsberg is a Partner at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP. This post is based on his Freshfields memorandum.

Here’s a quick overview of the new challenges and issues that I’m predicting the M&A eco-system will face in the coming year:

Antitrust – Just when you thought the going was good…. Early in Trump’s tenure, his populist picks to run the DOJ and FTC appeared ready to horseshoe themselves into where Biden’s progressives left off. Their public pronouncements frequently echoed the themes of the Biden enforcers, and a smiling Lina Khan appeared jointly with Steve Bannon. The agencies even embraced the new HSR rules and 2023 merger guidelines, both of which were promulgated under the Biden regime. There was though some hope that the Trump agencies would have more procedural discipline than Lina Khan and Jonathan Kanter, who had regularly used “sand in the gears” tactics to delay and often litigate to block deals, even knowing they would most likely lose on the merits. The Khan/Kanter strategy, which often worked, was premised on the hope that one of the merger parties would try to back out or just not have the wherewithal to keep fighting during the 12+ months following the signing of the definitive agreement that it takes for the merger parties to prevail before a judge in their effort to defeat a US antitrust agency’s challenge to their merger. The anticipated procedural discipline materialized, and as 2025 wore on, the Administration’s emphasis on economic growth gained ascendancy. By the end of 2025 we had crossed into new territory where dealmakers declare that  “We can cut just a deal with the agency,” and “We’ve got a White House strategy,” when it comes to US antitrust approval of M&A. Thus far, this idea that you can either cut a deal with the DOJ or FTC or get the Oval Office to green-light your deal has fed transformational M&A fever. In 2026, look out for this perception to change dramatically. The unpredictability of reliance on “The White House strategy,” the rise of blue state antitrust regulators and new state antitrust review processes, the pushback by frontline civil servants within the antitrust agencies against politicization, ill-advised hiring by merger parties of lobbyists who attract unhelpful attention to mergers that do not merit attention, and anticipation of mid-term elections that will give rise to at least one Democrat-controlled house of Congress where hearings will be held to investigate big mergers while they are pending, will all combine, by the end of 2026, to put a damper on the current misperception in boardrooms that “anything goes” when it comes to US antitrust review of M&A. Meanwhile, despite statements from Europe and the UK that they want to facilitate the growth of stronger and larger players through consolidation, the regulators on the Continent and in the UK may nonetheless create headwinds for cross-border M&A due to their reduced appetite for greenlighting mergers where the combined company will not necessarily be all that local in culture, headquarters, leadership, branding, or talent. The results will be an even further uptick during 2026 in the intensity of negotiations of regulatory risk allocations, pressure for ever higher regulatory reverse termination fees, and extended outside dates.

READ MORE »

Page 43 of 47
1 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47