Speaking at the Society for Corporate Governance Conference in Nashville earlier this month, Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Chair Paul Atkins addressed two major themes for public companies:  restoring materiality as the foundation of public company disclosure and reconsidering the shareholder proposal process under Rule 14a-8.  Chair Atkins connected those themes to the SEC’s broader focus on making it more attractive for companies to go public and remain public.

Chair Atkins expressed concern about the amount of immaterial information currently included in the lengthy public filings that companies prepare, at substantial cost, and that investors struggle to understand or just ignore entirely.  Chair Atkins noted that in January 2026, the SEC began soliciting public feedback on Regulation S-K and has received more than 100 comment letters.  He highlighted comments recommending an overarching “materiality overlay” qualifier for Regulation S-K, which would permit companies to omit information otherwise called for by a line item of Regulation S-K if the information is not material, with some also recommending potential exceptions in which the qualifier would not apply, such as executive compensation disclosure.  In Chair Atkins’ view, this approach may help create a principles-based disclosure regime that represents the “minimum effective dose of regulation” and elicits material information based on the facts and circumstances of each company, while market forces could drive disclosure of other information that a company’s investors want.

Chair Atkins also emphasized that any move toward a more principles-based disclosure framework will require companies to exercise judgment. He cautioned that a materiality overlay will reduce immaterial disclosure only if companies use the discretion afforded to them and omit information that is not material; the SEC cannot force companies to take advantage of new conditions. He also stated that companies must “own responsibility for the volume, clarity, and substance” of their filings, and that, rather than including disclosures just because peers have them or because they have included them in the past, they should carefully consider whether the information is required or material to avoid filings filled with trivial information that does not help companies or shareholders.

Continue reading this blog post.

On 3 July 2026, the European Commission (“EC”) adopted revised European Sustainability Reporting Standards (“ESRS”) and, for smaller companies, a voluntary reporting standard.

The revised ESRS are intended to simplify sustainability reporting under the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive. The target of the EC is to reduce the administrative burden on EU businesses whilst maintaining high-quality disclosures. The revised ESRS are clearer and more succinct – the ESRS streamline processes by reducing the number of mandatory datapoints by more than 60% and the total number of datapoints by more than 70%. These changes are expected to reduce reporting costs by more than 30% per company.

Continue reading this Legal Update.

For decades, U.S. securities regulation treated foreign private issuers (“FPIs”) with ‘home country deference,’ offering accommodations based on the premise that robust local oversight rendered many U.S. requirements duplicative. Over time, however, that premise has begun giving way to ‘domestication’: a move to align FPIs with U.S. reporting norms, at least in part based on the idea that these issuers primarily access capital in the U.S. markets.

Stretching as far back as 1935, when the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission” or the “SEC”) stated that “an endeavor has been made to adapt the requirements for domestic issuers to the peculiar circumstances of foreign issuers. In view of the disparity between the laws and practices existing in the several countries, it was necessary to introduce great flexibility in the requirements;” the federal securities laws have considered that the different characteristics of domestic and foreign issuers requires a different regulatory approach. This difference in approach is evident in our current regulatory scheme, which provides a number of corporate governance, disclosure-related, and procedural accommodations to foreign private issuers. However, in recent years, the question as to whether these accommodations remain appropriate for all foreign issuers has been the subject of debate, and the current framework seems poised for change.

For example, in June 2024, Commissioner Mark Uyeda shared his views on the accommodations provided to FPIs, requesting that “to provide greater certainty to [foreign] companies and ultimately to protect U.S. investors, the agency should articulate a philosophy for when disclosure by foreign companies should be equivalent to disclosure by U.S. companies.” Commissioner Uyeda continued, “As part of this process, the SEC should ensure that its ‘foreign private issuer’ definition reflects today’s capital markets and corporate structures, and captures the appropriate foreign companies,” an idea that may be on its way to fruition with the Commission’s June 2025 Concept Release on Foreign Private Issuer Eligibility, which proposed potential changes to the FPI definition.

This paper examines whether remarks and actions like the above mark a fundamental shift in the Commission’s stated priorities and positions, leading to a permanent shift in the SEC’s approach to the regulation of foreign issuers. We believe that the recent trend will continue and that more change is forthcoming for all FPIs, with the potential for additional focus on issuers based in the People’s Republic of China. We explore the rationale behind this hypothesis, and what it might mean for foreign issuers.

Continue reading this paper on The Review of Securities & Commodities Regulation.

In many ways, the 2026 proxy season has been markedly different than prior seasons, due, in no small part, to the November 2025 decision by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Staff not to provide substantive guidance on the grounds on which a company could omit a shareholder proposal under most prongs of Rule 14a-8 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  This change in the SEC’s approach created a new dynamic between companies and proponents, including with respect to the level of engagement between the parties and the factors a company must consider in determining whether to include a proposal in its proxy statement.  What is not different from the 2025 proxy season, though, is the prevalence of “anti-ESG” shareholder proposals submitted to public companies.  These proposals are generally critical of, or question the value of, company policies or initiatives related to environmental, social or governance (“ESG”) factors, including how the company discloses, reacts to and manages ESG-related risks and policies, such as, for example, risks related to carbon emissions, as well as policies addressing diversity, shareholder rights and corporate social responsibility.  As of the midpoint of the 2026 proxy season, “anti-ESG” proposals are very common, just as they have been in recent years.

As of May 31, 2026, approximately 135 ESG-related proposals have been voted on by public company shareholders, constituting almost 35% of the total shareholder proposals voted on to date this proxy season.  Almost 38% of these, or around 50 proposals, are “anti-ESG” proposals, while the remaining around 80 proposals, or about 62% of the ESG-related proposals, support ESG-related actions or disclosure.  Approximately 28 additional anti-ESG proposals were excluded through the Rule 14a-8 no action process.  Just as in both 2024 and 2025, none of the ESG-related proposals has received a passing shareholder vote.  In 2026, the average vote in favor of anti-ESG proposals was about 1.7%; such proposals received a median support level of 1.07%.  The average vote in favor of proposals supporting ESG is higher, at almost 13.3%, with a median support level of about 11.2%; one pro-ESG climate-related proposal received 47% support.

Continue reading on Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance.

The 2026 proxy season thus far has been out-of-the-ordinary, impacted by regulatory and policy developments that required companies and shareholders to adapt their shareholder proposal and engagement strategies. As a result of these unusual circumstances, particularly when coupled with uncertainty about the evolving role of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and potential rule changes on the horizon, it is somewhat difficult to rely on this year’s shareholder proposal experience as a reliable indicator of future trends. Nevertheless, examination of the proposals submitted and voted upon this season can still provide useful insights into the topics of greatest interest to shareholders and can help guide public companies’ engagement efforts and priorities.

Setting the stage for much of the uncertainty this proxy season, the SEC Staff effectively withdrew from the no-action process for the 2026 proxy season, fundamentally altering the dynamics between companies and shareholder proponents. Shareholder proposal submissions declined from 951 in 2025 to approximately 789 in 2026. Corporate governance proposals comprised the largest share of proposals at 49%. Environmental and social proposals continued to decline; no environmental proposal received majority shareholder support in either 2025 or 2026. Anti-ESG proposals constituted approximately 20% of all proposals voted on, yet none received a passing vote. Only approximately 7% of proposals voted on received majority shareholder support, a significant decline from 14% in 2025, with governance proposals representing the overwhelming majority of those that passed. Regulatory developments, including executive orders targeting proxy advisory firms, revised SEC guidance on beneficial ownership, and potential Rule 14a-8 rulemaking, may continue to transform the shareholder proposal landscape.

Continue reading on Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance.

Webinar: June 23, 2026 | 8:30 a.m. – 9:30 a.m. ET
Register here.

Corporate boards today face expanding expectations and intensifying scrutiny. Directors are expected to oversee not only traditional financial and operational risks, but also cybersecurity, AI, geopolitics, regulatory complexity, reputational exposure, workforce issues, activist pressures, and rapidly changing disclosure requirements.  

Lawrence Cunningham (Presiding Director, Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance) will offer a practical discussion of risk oversight from the perspective of an experienced public company director and governance professional. Using a leading institutional framework as a foundation, the presentation will explore how boards actually approach risk oversight in practice—including the distinction between oversight and management, the role of board committees, the importance of incentives and culture, and the growing challenge of information overload. The session is designed to provide directors, executives, and governance professionals with practical insights into how effective boards oversee risk while continuing to support strategy, innovation, and long-term value creation.

As we previewed, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has proposed to rescind its Climate-Related Disclosure Rules, which were adopted in March 2024 and require registrants to provide certain climate-related information in their registration statements and annual reports. The Climate-Related Disclosure Rules, however, have been stayed since April 4, 2024, pending litigation which we have widely covered on this blog. In today’s release, the SEC called the rules a “dramatic overreach of the Commission’s statutory authority and, independently, unsound as a matter of policy,” and proposed to rescind the Climate-Related Disclosure Rules in their entirety.  

The proposing release explains the SEC’s view that the Climate-Related Disclosure Rules exceed the statutory limits of the SEC’s disclosure authority. The SEC argues that the Climate-Related Disclosure Rules compelled disclosures that are “not within the scope of the categories of disclosures Congress required and do not comport with the directives Congress set for excepting from, substituting, or adding to those disclosures.” The SEC also claims that the Climate-Related Disclosure Rules interfere with State corporate law without a statutory directive.

The SEC adds that even if it had the authority to adopt the Climate-Related Disclosure Rules, there are independent policy reasons supporting their withdrawal. The SEC notes that the rules are unnecessary and inconsistent with a registrant-specific, materiality-based approach to disclosure, which SEC Chair Paul Atkins has repeatedly advocated since the start of his tenure. In addition, the SEC claims that the Climate-Related Disclosure Rules are not aligned with federal securities law policy concerns, impose unjustified costs as compared to the informational benefits the disclosures may provide to certain investors, and conflict with the SEC’s policy objectives of facilitating capital formation and promoting public company status.

Chair Atkins noted that “SEC disclosure obligations should comply with the Commission’s statutory authority, be guided by materiality as the North Star, avoid the practical effect of dictating corporate behavior, and be imposed only when the expected benefits justify the likely costs and burdens.” The public comment period is now open until 60 days after publication of the proposing release in the Federal Register.

Read the SEC’s press release, fact sheet and proposing release.

On May 19, 2026, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) published two rulemaking proposals, each of which would substantially revise the requirements of the U.S. federal securities laws applicable to public companies. These proposals mark the next step in SEC Chair Paul Atkins’ mission to grow the U.S. capital markets and “make IPOs great again,” and clearly reflect the SEC’s commitment to this mission.

This Legal Update covers one proposal, titled “Enhancement of Emerging Growth Company Accommodations and Simplification of Filer Status for Reporting Companies” (the “Proposing Release”). The Proposing Release lays out a new simplified structure for the filer status of many domestic U.S. companies that report under Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), along with numerous ideas for comprehensive disclosure simplification and comment requests.

Continue reading.

On May 19, 2026, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC” or the “Commission”) proposed extensive amendments to the registered offering framework under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”). The SEC’s rulemaking proposal on Registered Offering Reform (the “Proposal”) has the potential to be the most significant offering reform in over 20 years. Most important, the Proposal would broaden eligibility to register securities offerings on Form S-3 and provide enhanced registration and communication benefits to a broad universe of issuers, changes that may dramatically increase the ability of such issuers to raise capital quickly in the public markets.

In a statement, SEC Chair Paul Atkins remarked that the Proposal “would address impediments, which result from outdated SEC rules, to public companies’ ability to conduct registered offerings quickly.” He noted that the Proposal, along with the second rulemaking proposal aimed at enhancing filer status, “are among the first important steps toward transforming the SEC’s regulatory framework for public companies.”

We discuss the most significant proposed changes in this Legal Update.

Beginning on March 18, 2026, pursuant to the Holding Foreign Insiders Accountable Act (the “HFIAA”) officers and directors of foreign private issuers (“FPIs”) were required to comply the beneficial ownership reporting requirements in Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).  On March 5, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) published an order granting an exemption from such beneficial ownership reporting requirements for officers and directors of certain FPIs (the “March Order,” read about it here).  On May 20, 2026, the SEC published an additional exemptive order expanding the list of “qualifying jurisdictions” eligible for such exemptive relief to include Australia, India and Singapore.

Pursuant to authority provided to the agency under the HFIAA, the SEC’s orders exempt officers and directors of any FPI that is (i) incorporated or organized in a “qualifying jurisdiction,” and (ii) subject to a “qualifying regulation,” from Section 16(a) reporting requirements.  As stated in both orders, “the exemptive relief is available to directors and officers of an FPI that is either (i) incorporated or organized in a qualifying jurisdiction and subject to a qualifying regulation of the same jurisdiction or (ii) incorporated or organized in a qualifying jurisdiction but subject to a qualifying regulation of a different jurisdiction.”

Just like the March Order, the current order also names the “qualifying regulations” for the qualifying jurisdictions, each of which is “substantially similar” to the disclosure requirements of Section 16(a). 

The exemptive relief is subject to the same conditions required by the March Order.

Read the order here.