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]

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

Companies today face more pressure to speak on social and political issues than ever before. With the constant barrage of issues, the consequences of any course of action can be hard to predict. Speaking up can risk backlash for saying the wrong thing, but refraining from speaking at all may no longer be a reliable way to stay above the fray and avoid criticism. Companies may conclude that, when it comes to issues of great importance to their stakeholders, silence is no longer an option. One question that follows for boards and management, then, is whether they can break the silence without breaching their fiduciary duties.Continue Reading Meeting Fiduciary Duties When Speaking Up: A 21st Century Roadmap

On July 26, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC” or “Commission”) adopted rules to enhance and standardize disclosure requirements related to cybersecurity incident reporting and cybersecurity risk management, strategy, and governance.Continue Reading New SEC Disclosure Rules for Cybersecurity Incidents and Governance and Key Takeaways

The following post was originally included as part of our recently published memorandum “Selected Issues for Boards of Directors in 2023”.

Over the past year, public companies have faced an onslaught of external pressures, including an uncertain economy, an ongoing pandemic with changing rules and best practices and increasing demands from various stakeholders.

The SEC published in March 2022 a dauntingly complex proposal to require public companies to provide climate-related disclosures.[1]  The period for public comment on the proposal is very short, and it seems clear that a majority of the Commission is determined to proceed quickly.
Continue Reading The SEC’s Climate Proposal – Top Points for Comment

As ESG remains a mainstay of board and investor focus, effective shareholder engagement is as important as ever, and as complex as ever, for ensuring that companies have the external support necessary to advance their long-term strategy.
Continue Reading 2022 Shareholder Engagement Trends and Considerations: ESG and Investor Outreach

On December 15, 2021, the SEC issued for public comment two separate proposals that will, if adopted, significantly affect how corporate directors, officers and employees trade securities of their companies and how companies repurchase their own shares.

This memorandum walks through the two proposals in turn and concludes with some general takeaways and possible issues