On November 19, 2025, the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) held a third working group session to present its implementing regulation proposals for SB 261 and SB 253. Shortly after the session started, the Ninth Circuit published an order that granted an injunction against the enforcement of SB 261, pending the ongoing appeal.Continue Reading California Climate Rules: What To Do Pending the Ninth Circuit’s Injunction
Shuangjun Wang
SEC Announces Changes to Rule 14a-8 No-Action Letter Process
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
Taking the Plunge: Registration Statement Filings Without a Delaying Amendment During the Shutdown
For more insights and analysis from Cleary lawyers on policy and regulatory developments from a legal perspective, visit What to Expect From a Second Trump Administration.
As the U.S. government shutdown stretches into its sixth week—and in light of the SEC’s clarification that it will not be reviewing and declaring registration statements effective via the traditional route during the shutdown—issuers seeking to proceed with primary and secondary offerings are turning to a statutory alternative that permits registration statements to go automatically effective without SEC clearance.[1] The exchanges have indicated willingness to play along, with some regulatory caveats,[2] and SEC leadership has publicly endorsed this method of having a registration statement go effective during the shutdown.[3]Continue Reading Taking the Plunge: Registration Statement Filings Without a Delaying Amendment During the Shutdown
To Arbitrate or Not to Arbitrate: The SEC Now Allows Companies to Choose
On September 17, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Commission) voted 3-1 to issue a policy statement clarifying that the presence of a mandatory arbitration provision for investor claims arising under the federal securities laws in an issuer’s articles or certificate of incorporation, bylaws or any securities-related contractual agreements (Operating Documents) will not affect the Commission’s decision whether to accelerate the effectiveness of that issuer’s registration statement.[1] The statement marks a reversal of the Commission’s longstanding refusal to accelerate an issuer’s registration statement under these circumstances,[2] a position that has resulted in U.S. public companies generally not including mandatory arbitration provisions for federal securities law claims in their Operating Documents. As a result, these claims can and have historically been filed as class actions in federal courts.Continue Reading To Arbitrate or Not to Arbitrate: The SEC Now Allows Companies to Choose
House Financial Services Committee Previews Possible 14a-8 Reform
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
Shareholder Engagement Considerations in light of Texas v. Blackrock
On Friday, the Court in Texas v. Blackrock issued an opinion largely denying defendants’ motion to dismiss, which allows a coalition of States to proceed with claims that BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard conspired to violate the antitrust laws by pressuring publicly traded coal companies to reduce output in connection with the investment firms’ ESG commitments. The Court found that the States plausibly alleged that defendants coordinated with one another, relying on allegations that they joined climate initiatives, made parallel public commitments, engaged with management of the public coal companies, and aligned proxy voting on disclosure issues. It is worth noting that, while the court viewed BlackRock’s, State Street’s, and Vanguard’s participation in Climate Action 100+ and NZAM as increasing the plausibility of the claim in favor of denying the motion to dismiss, the Court clarified that it was not opining that the parties conspired at Climate Action 100+ or NZAM.Continue Reading Shareholder Engagement Considerations in light of Texas v. Blackrock
A New Regulatory Environment for Climate and Other ESG Reporting Rules
The following is part of our annual publication Selected Issues for Boards of Directors in 2025. Explore all topics or download the PDF.
The Ill-Fated SEC Climate Rule
On March 6, 2024, the SEC adopted final rules “to enhance and standardize climate-related disclosures for investors,” which included, among other things, requirements to disclose material climate-related risks and related governance policies and practices and mitigation and adaptation activities, targets and goals, Scope 1 and 2 emissions reports and financial statement effects of severe weather events and other natural conditions, including related costs and expenditures (the Climate Rule).Continue Reading A New Regulatory Environment for Climate and Other ESG Reporting Rules