Corporate Law

Subscribe to Corporate Law via RSS

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

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

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

This article follows up on our prior analysis of the Delaware Court of Chancery’s liability determination in the Alexion-Syntimmune case, available here.

In designing the earnout structure, parties should anticipate how expectation damages would be determined by a court using a discounted, probability-weighted mathematical method. 

On June 11, 2025, the Delaware Court of Chancery established an important framework for how courts may approach the calculation of earnout damages in pharma milestone disputes in its most recent decision in Shareholder Representative Services LLC v. Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.[1]  In an earlier opinion (the “September Opinion”), the Court found that a buyer, Alexion, was liable for breach of contract for its failure to use commercially reasonable efforts to achieve milestones for which future earnout payments may have become due to the selling securityholders of Syntimmune, Inc.[2]  The June 11 opinion adopted a probability-based mathematical framework to determine the amount of damages owed and it provides a number of important takeaways:Continue Reading Calculating Pharma Earnout Damages: Strategic Lessons for Designing Milestone Frameworks

As discussed in our last Corporate Transparent Act (CTA) update, the U.S. Treasury Department announced on March 2 that it planned to issue an interim rule excluding U.S. companies and citizens from CTA reporting obligations. The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has now done so, limiting the scope of the CTA to non-U.S. parties. This will dramatically reduce the operational burdens and costs of the CTA for registered investment advisers.Continue Reading FinCEN Eliminates CTA Requirements for All U.S. Companies and U.S. Individuals

We noted in our last Corporate Transparent Act (CTA) update that on February 27, 2025, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a bureau of the U.S. Treasury Department, announced that it would not take any enforcement actions against any company that does not file or update beneficial ownership information required under the CTA until after FinCEN issued a new interim rule.  The Treasury Department announced yesterday that it will not enforce any penalties or fines against “U.S. citizens or domestic reporting companies or their beneficial owners” for not filing this information even after the new interim rule.  Instead, the Treasury Department said that it will issue a proposed rulemaking “that will narrow the scope of the rule to foreign reporting companies only.” Continue Reading Trump Administration Proposes Eliminating CTA Requirements for All U.S. Companies

Amid various ongoing litigation concerning the constitutionality of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), the U.S. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) had announced on February 19, 2025, that it was extending the CTA beneficial ownership information filing deadline for most companies to March 21, 2025 (see Client Alert here).  Now, FinCEN has taken a step further, announcing yesterday “that it will not issue any fines or penalties or take any other enforcement actions against any companies based on any failure to file or update” any reports mandated by the CTA.  According to FinCEN, “no enforcement actions will be taken, until a forthcoming interim final rule becomes effective.”  FinCEN states that it will issue the interim rule no later than March 21, 2025, and the new rule will establish new CTA filing deadlines. Continue Reading FinCEN Pauses All CTA Filing Obligations and Will Issue New Rules

As previously reported (see CTA client alert), on January 23, 2025, in Texas Top Cop Shop v. Bondi, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed an injunction barring enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), but a different Texas trial court’s injunction remained in place.  On February 18, that second court, in Smith v. United States Department of the Treasury, lifted its injunction against CTA enforcement, relying on the Supreme Court ruling.  Oral argument in Texas Top Cop Shop remains scheduled before the Fifth Circuit on April 1, 2025.Continue Reading Remaining Injunction Pausing Corporate Transparency Act is Lifted; FinCEN Extends General Filing Deadline to March 21; Statute’s Future Remains Uncertain

As of our last client update on the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) litigation (see CTA client alert), the U.S. Supreme Court, in an 8-1 ruling, lifted a nationwide injunction issued by a Texas trial court in Texas Top Cop Shop v. Bondi that had blocked CTA enforcement, but another nationwide injunction issued by another Texas trial court in Smith v. United States Department of the Treasury continued to stall CTA implementation. Now, the new Trump Administration, in its first formal actions related to the CTA litigations, (i) on February 5, filed a notice of appeal and motion to stay the injunction in Smith, and (ii) on February 7, filed a brief supporting the constitutionality of the CTA in Texas Top Cop Shop. Given the Supreme Court’s decision in Texas Top Cop Shop to lift the injunction against CTA enforcement, we believe the government’s effort to stay the injunction in Smith is likely to succeed.Continue Reading Trump Administration Continues Defense of Corporate Transparency Act, Indicates FinCEN’s Flexibility On Deadlines And Scope

The long and winding road of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) litigation (as discussed in our most recent CTA client alert) has taken another turn, and this time companies are driving blind. On New Year’s Eve, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) asked the U.S. Supreme Court to lift the injunction imposed by a Texas court and let the law go into effect while the legal contest over the constitutionality of the law is pending. Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court resoundingly agreed with the DOJ. In an 8-1 ruling, the nation’s highest Court lifted the stay on enforcement of the statute. One might assume that the Supreme Court ruling ended the injunction issue, but a separate order issued by a different federal judge in Texas blocking enforcement of the statute nationwide remains in place.Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Lifts Initial Injunction Against Enforcement Of Corporate Transparency Act, But A Separate Injunction Continues To Halt Implementation