Francesca L. Odell

Subscribe to Francesca L. Odell's Posts
Contact:Read more about Francesca L. Odell

The following is part of our annual publication Selected Issues for Boards of Directors in 2026. Explore all topics or download the PDF.

Recent executive orders and agency actions have altered the risk assessment of corporate diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs, creating a complex compliance environment that requires board oversight. In the coming year, boards of directors, particularly of public companies, will find it necessary to focus on a number of key considerations regarding DEI-related risks.Continue Reading Considerations in Advising Boards of Directors on DEI-Related Risks

The following was originally posted on our Cleary Securities, Disclosure, and Governance Watch blog.

I. Introduction

In November 2025, the Division of Corporate Finance (the “Staff”) of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) announced that it would no longer provide substantive responses to most no-action requests for shareholder proposals during this proxy season. Since this announcement (the “Announcement”), public companies have found themselves in uncharted territory. While companies may request a response from the Staff if they provide an unqualified representation that the company has a reasonable basis to exclude the proposal under Rule 14a-8, the Staff will only issue a no-action response based on that unqualified representation, and not based on any independent analysis of the merits of the arguments presented. Without the added assurance of the SEC’s substantive review, a number of companies have refreshed their strategic approach to no-action letters this proxy season. The exclusion notices[1] that have been submitted since the Announcement provide a glimpse into emerging trends regarding how companies and their legal counsel are interpreting the announcement and navigating this unguided landscape.Continue Reading The NAL Landscape Post-SEC Announcement

The SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance just announced that it will largely step back from the shareholder proposal no-action letter process for the current proxy season (October 1, 2025 – September 30, 2026). The Division cited three reasons: resource constraints following the recent government shutdown, a high volume of registration statements competing for staff attention, and the extensive existing body of guidance already available to companies and proponents. The announcement aligns with the deregulatory approach we flagged in September when discussing potential reforms to the shareholder proposal process under the current SEC.Continue Reading SEC Announces Changes to Rule 14a-8 No-Action Letter Process

On September 10, 2025, the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services hosted a hearing titled “Proxy Power and Proposal Abuse: Reforming Rule 14a-8 to Protect Shareholder Value” to assess the shareholder proposal process, evaluate the influence of proxy advisory firms and highlight legislative solutions to limit shareholder proposals to material issues. The hearing comes at a time of enhanced regulatory scrutiny of the shareholder proposal process and could be indicative of future 14a-8 reform approaches under the SEC’s recently issued Spring 2025 Reg-Flex Agenda. Continue Reading House Financial Services Committee Previews Possible 14a-8 Reform

The following is part of our annual publication Selected Issues for Boards of Directors in 2025. Explore all topics or download the PDF.

The SEC pursued multiple high profile enforcement actions in 2024, alongside issuing additional guidance around compliance with the new cybersecurity disclosure rules. Together these developments demonstrate a continued focus by the SEC on robust disclosure frameworks for cybersecurity incidents. Public companies will need to bear these developments in mind as they continue to grapple with cybersecurity disclosure requirements going into 2025.Continue Reading Cybersecurity Disclosure and Enforcement Developments and Predictions

On August 14, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri (the “District Court”) issued a decision ordering a permanent injunction against rules promulgated by the Missouri Securities Division, colloquially referred to as Missouri’s “Anti-ESG” Rules, requiring that broker dealers and investment advisers disclose to and obtain written consent from customers if their investment decisions or advice “incorporate[] a social objective or other nonfinancial objective” (the “Rules”).  The District Court held the Rules were preempted by both the National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996 (“NSMIA”) and the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”).  The District Court also held the Rules violated the First Amendment’s protection against compelled speech and were unconstitutionally vague.  The decision highlights the limits of U.S. state power in policing the social objectives broker dealers and investment advisers incorporate into their practice and, if not overturned on appeal, suggests that broker dealers and investment advisers may face less legislative pushback, at least at the state level, in pursuing environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) objectives in the future.Continue Reading District Court Holds Missouri’s “Anti-ESG” Rules are Preempted by Federal Law, Violate First Amendment, and are Unconstitutionally Vague[1]

On March 6, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission approved in a 3-2 vote final rules that require most reporting companies to provide certain climate-related information in their registration statements and annual reports filed with the SEC. This memorandum summarizes a portion of the final rules, the amendments to Regulation S-X, as amended (Regulation S-X), under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the Securities Act), and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), that require a new footnote in audited financial statements, analyzes some of the key challenges these requirements may impose and concludes with some general takeaways. This memorandum does not address the GHG emissions and attestation report disclosure requirements or the governance, business, risk and targets disclosure requirements set forth in the final rules’ amendments to Regulation S-K, as amended (Regulation S-K), under the Securities Act and Exchange Act.Continue Reading SEC’s Final Climate-Related Disclosure Rules: A Closer Look at the Climate Note to Audited Financial Statements

The following post was originally included as part of our recently published memorandum “Selected Issues for Boards of Directors in 2024”.

In June 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Harvard University and the University of North Carolina’s admissions programs, which considered candidates’ race in admission decisions, violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  While these decisions, known collectively as SFFA, do not apply to a corporation’s employment decisions, language in the Court’s opinion has led many to speculate as to how the precedent could potentially be expanded to this context.  The Court’s majority noted that the language of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which, broadly speaking, bars discrimination in employment decisions, is almost identical to corresponding language in Title VI.  Notably, in writing a concurrence joined by Justice Thomas, Justice Gorsuch observed that Title VII is “[j]ust next door” to Title VI, and noted that the majority opinion tracks the Supreme Court’s prior rulings interpreting “materially identical language in Title VII,” prompting Justice Gorsuch to ask rhetorically whether it makes sense to “read the same words in neighboring provisions of the same statute—enacted at the same time by the same Congress—to mean different things?” Continue Reading How Boards Should Be Thinking about the Supreme Court’s SFFA Affirmative Action Decision

Over thirteen years after the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act added Section 10D to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) clawback rules[1] became effective on October 2, 2023 (the “Clawback Rules”). Companies listed on national exchanges such as the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) and the Nasdaq Stock Market (“Nasdaq”) will be required to adopt clawback policies by December 1, 2023 and comply with their respective listing standards.[2] Companies, executives and advisors have understandably been grappling with how to ensure compliance with these new Clawback Rules. Below, we address some common questions that we have received.Continue Reading ClawFAQs: Common Clawback Questions