Yearly Archives: 2026

Delaware Supreme Court Reverses Moelis

Walter Davis and Marjorie Duffy are Partners, and Randi Lesnick is a Co-Chair of the Corporate Practice at Jones Day. This post is based on a Jones Day memorandum by Mr. Davis, Ms. Duffy, Ms. Lesnick, Joel May, and Jennifer Lewis, and is part of the Delaware law series; links to other posts in the series are available here.

In Short

The Situation: A stockholder sought a judgment declaring that certain provisions of a stockholders agreement were facially invalid and unenforceable under 8 Del. C. § 141(a). The Court of Chancery found that the plaintiff’s claims were timely and that the stockholders agreement violated Delaware law.

The Result: The Delaware Supreme Court held that the challenged provisions, to the extent they conflict with the managerial authority of the board conferred by § 141(a), were voidable (not void) and that the plaintiff unreasonably delayed in asserting its challenge to those provisions.

Looking Ahead: The Court of Chancery’s decision was the catalyst for the 2024 amendments to § 122(18), which resolved market uncertainty in the wake of that decision. The Delaware Supreme Court’s decision provides another measure of certainty by making clear that a plaintiff’s facial challenges to voidable acts must be timely brought.

READ MORE »

Five Ways AI Could Transform Coming Proxy Seasons

James E. Langston and Carmen X. Lu are Partners at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. This post is based on a Paul Weiss memorandum by Mr. Langston, Ms. Lu, Katherine Forrest, and Jonathan Ashtor.

Recent decisions by J.P. Morgan Asset Management and Wells Fargo to deploy artificial intelligence (“AI”) to guide proxy voting are evidence of deeper structural changes already underway that could transform future proxy seasons. The near-term impact of AI will likely be most acutely felt in the shift away from benchmark voting policies developed by proxy advisors to customized voting policies developed with the aid of AI. Over the medium to longer term, AI could potentially upend the tactics, tools and timing of future proxy contests. We highlight below five potential changes that could occur in the coming years.

READ MORE »

Arizona Senate Bill 1503: The “Sole Economic Interest” Standard and State-Level Intervention in Proxy Voting and Fiduciary Governance

Elizabeth Goldberg is a Partner and Yara Ismael is an Associate at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Arizona Senate Bill 1503 (SB1503) would reshape the legal landscape for proxy voting by public pension fiduciaries and their engagement with proxy advisory firms. The bill — introduced on January 29, 2026, sponsored by Senators David Gowan and Javan Mesnard and Representative Justin Olson — has advanced out of committee.

The bill reflects a broader national trend toward heightened scrutiny of proxy voting practices, fiduciary duties, and shareholder engagement. For example, Texas recently enacted SB 2337, which imposes disclosure and economic-interest requirements on proxy advisory firms when their recommendations are not based solely on shareholders’ financial interests, and a recent Executive Order has directed federal agencies to review the regulation of proxy advisors and environmental, social, or governance (ESG) related voting practices within the federal fiduciary framework. Senator Gowan told the committee that SB1503 mirrors recent federal action aimed at refocusing fiduciary decision-making on economic return and limiting the influence of ESG and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) considerations in proxy voting.

READ MORE »

Key Issues for Companies and Activist Investors Heading into the 2026 Proxy Season

Kerry E. Berchem, John Patrick Clayton, and Bryan D. Flannery are Partners at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. This post is based on an Akin Gump memorandum by Ms. Berchem, Mr. Clayton, Mr. Flannery, Steven Franklin, Douglas A. Rappaport, and Kate D. Shapiro.

Executive Summary

As the 2026 proxy season prepares to go into full swing, significant structural shifts are underway in the proxy voting ecosystem. Regulatory scrutiny, evolving investor stewardship frameworks and innovations in retail voting platforms are combining to complicate traditional assumptions about governance activism. For shareholder activists, whether hedge funds, ESG- or sustainability-oriented groups or other investors, the new regime presents both opportunities and headwinds.

READ MORE »

Nathan Cummings Foundation v. Axon Enterprise, Inc.

Laura Campos is the Senior Director of Economic Justice at Nathan Cummings Foundation.

On February 17, 2026, Nathan Cummings Foundation (NCF) filed suit against Axon Enterprise for its intended omission of our shareholder proposal. We took this step reluctantly. It felt like our only option in the wake of a recent departure from decades of standard practice following the Securities & Exchange Commission’s (SEC) November 2025 announcement that its staff would abandon the practice of reviewing and responding to no-action requests.

Historically, companies that believed they had a valid basis under Exchange Act Rule 14a-8 (the Rule) to omit a proposal under one of the Rule’s enumerated exclusions filed a mandatory notice with the SEC, typically asking for no-action relief. I.e., the company seeking relief would ask the SEC staff to concur with its analysis and represent informally that the staff would not recommend an enforcement action against the company were the company to omit the proposal. The proponent, by rule, was entitled to respond to the companyʼs notice, and the staff would typically take both submissions under advisement and issue guidance either concurring or not concurring with the company’s analysis. While not binding in either direction, companies generally respected the staffʼs response.

Though shareholders retained their private right of action to sue the company, even when the staff concurred with the company’s request, the long-standing process often led to matters being resolved directly between the shareholder proponent and the company rather than through a lawsuit. For that reason, we have seen only sporadic suits. READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: February 27-March 5, 2026


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of February 27-March 5, 2026


Private Equity for All: The Paradoxical Push to Democratize Private Markets


Texas Judge Strikes Down Anti-ESG “Boycott” Law


Delegating Enforceability: A Novel Solution to Corporate Forum Selection Disputes


Business Concentration around the World: 1900-2020



Chancery Interprets LLC Agreement as Not Eliminating Fiduciary Duties


Systematic Corruption



Reframing Board Diversity Disclosure in 2026 Proxy Statements



Sustainability Disclosures: A Complex Legal and Regulatory Environment for Boards of Directors


Building a Policy-First System for Proxy Voting and Governance Analysis


Building a Policy-First System for Proxy Voting and Governance Analysis

Nicolaas Koster and Alexander Kaltenböck are Co-Founders, and Karla Bos is an Advisory Board Member at Proxywise AI.

Proxy voting is one of the most structured and observable ways institutional shareholders exercise governance rights. Yet the operational cost of applying voting policies consistently across thousands of ballot items remains high.

As Professor Lucian Bebchuk and others have emphasized, institutional ownership concentrates shareholder power in intermediaries. Voting authority is exercised through layered delegation: beneficiaries to asset owners, asset owners to asset managers, and managers to internal stewardship teams and (often) external research providers. Concentration does not eliminate agency costs; it relocates them. The practical costs of implementing and monitoring voting policy therefore shape whether shareholder power is exercised effectively.

At Proxywise AI, we are building a policy-first proxy voting and governance analysis system designed to make proxy voting more transparent, consistent, and auditable. This post highlights the core design choices behind the system and what we are learning from two early-stage pilots in proxy season 2026 – one with an asset owner and one with a large asset manager – running in parallel against existing workflows for testing and validation.

READ MORE »

Sustainability Disclosures: A Complex Legal and Regulatory Environment for Boards of Directors

Kenneth J. Markowitz and Stacey H. Mitchell are Partners and George O’Malley-Knowles is of Counsel at Akin Gump. This post is based on an Akin Gump memorandum by Mr. Markowitz, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. O’Malley-Knowles, Brecken Petty, Samantha Z. Purdy, and Jan Walter.

Executive Summary

  • As sustainability requirements increasingly become fragmented, boards should navigate divergent state, federal and international laws, regulations, policy frameworks and shareholder pressures that heighten operational, legal and political risks.
  • Climate Reporting & Disclosure Requirements. U.S. states like California and New York continue to seek to advance expansive climate reporting mandates despite federal pullbacks, while the EU, Middle East and other international jurisdictions tighten sustainability reporting and due diligence requirements.
  • ESG in the States. Companies face rising complexity as U.S. states adopt opposing pro- and anti-ESG laws that impact investment decisions, contracting eligibility and operational risk. Boards should monitor this patchwork of state level mandates, assess compliance gaps and prepare for rapid shifts in enforcement priorities driven by political change.
  • Greenwashing. Companies face mounting exposure to greenwashing claims, prompting boards to strengthen verification, assurance, carbon accounting and governance processes around sustainability disclosures and marketing statements.
  • Shareholder Activism. Activist proposals, proxy battles and derivative suits continue to pressure boards to demonstrate credible sustainability oversight and measurable progress toward stated sustainability commitments.
  • Contracts. Contracting practices increasingly embed sustainability requirements, requiring boards to consider supply chain diligence, compliance frameworks and the potential business risks associated with sustainability related contractual terms.

READ MORE »

Fiduciary Stewardship, Systemic Risk, and Democratic Authority: A Critique of the Paxton–Vanguard Settlement

Sarah Wilson is the Founder and CEO of Minerva Analytics.

On February 26, 2026, the Texas Attorney General announced a $29.5 million settlement with Vanguard in multistate litigation alleging that major asset managers used stewardship and net‑zero initiatives to coordinate conduct among competing coal producers. Vanguard agreed to “strict passivity commitments” limiting its ability to influence corporate strategy or support environmental and social shareholder proposals, while denying wrongdoing and admitting no liability.

Whatever one’s views on ESG politics, the settlement raises a narrower and more consequential question: what happens when politically framed enforcement rhetoric and settlement leverage are used to recharacterize ordinary fiduciary risk governance as unlawful collusion, without adjudicated findings?

READ MORE »

Reframing Board Diversity Disclosure in 2026 Proxy Statements

Lillian Tsu, J.T. Ho, and Helena Grannis are Partners at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. This post was prepared for the Forum by Ms. Tsu, Mr. Ho, Ms. Grannis, Shuangjun Wang, and Bobby Bee.

Board diversity disclosure is undergoing a meaningful recalibration. After years of increasing pressure by shareholders and other stakeholders to increase the number of women and underrepresented minorities on boards and provide robust disclosure of board demographic information, the framework is now shifting.  Following the U.S. Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit’s December 2024 decision to strike down the rule requiring Nasdaq-listed companies to include board diversity disclosure in their proxy statements, the Trump Administration’s targeting of DEI programs, and the related pullback from the major proxy advisory firms and institutional investors in their stewardship principles and voting guidelines, companies are now re-assessing how they define and describe the diversity of directors serving on their boards in their proxy statements.  While companies continue to emphasize that their boards include directors with diverse skills, backgrounds, experiences and viewpoints, proxy statement disclosure increasingly frames diversity in broader terms instead of focusing primarily on protected classes.

READ MORE »

Page 44 of 56
1 … 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 … 56