Board diversity disclosure is undergoing a meaningful recalibration. After years of increasing pressure by shareholders and other stakeholders to increase the number of women and underrepresented minorities on boards and provide robust disclosure of board demographic information, the framework is now shifting. Following the U.S. Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit’s December 2024 decision to strike down the rule requiring Nasdaq-listed companies to include board diversity disclosure in their proxy statements, the Trump Administration’s targeting of DEI programs, and the related pullback from the major proxy advisory firms and institutional investors in their stewardship principles and voting guidelines, companies are now re-assessing how they define and describe the diversity of directors serving on their boards in their proxy statements. While companies continue to emphasize that their boards include directors with diverse skills, backgrounds, experiences and viewpoints, proxy statement disclosure increasingly frames diversity in broader terms instead of focusing primarily on protected classes. Continue Reading Reframing Board Diversity Disclosure in 2026 Proxy Statements

On February 27, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission adopted final rules implementing the Holding Foreign Insiders Accountable Act, or HFIAA. As expected, the final rules require directors and officers of foreign private issuers with a class of equity securities registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act to report their beneficial ownership and transactions on Forms 3, 4, and 5. The rules take effect on March 18, 2026, meaning initial Form 3 filings are due in less than three weeks. The final rules contain no major surprises, and address several interpretive questions that remained open following enactment. As the SEC noted in explaining its decision to forgo notice-and-comment rulemaking, the amendments “simply conform the Commission’s rules and forms to the requirements of HFIA Act and involve limited exercise of agency discretion.” In this alert, we highlight the most significant clarifications and practical considerations for compliance. For additional background on HFIAA, please refer to our prior alert, Section 16(a) Insider Reporting: Legislation Ends Foreign Private Issuer Exemption.Continue Reading Section 16(a) Reporting: SEC Adopts Final Rules for Foreign Private Issuers

2026 promises to be a year that will demand both agility and strategic foresight from boards of directors and management as they navigate unprecedented challenges.

Drawing on insights from colleagues across Cleary Gottlieb’s global offices, our 2026 edition of Selected Issues for Boards of Directors examines the critical issues that dominated boardroom discussions in 2025 and identifies the emerging trends that will shape board agendas in the year ahead.

Continue Reading Selected Issues for Boards of Directors in 2026

On December 26, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the previous grant of a stay of the injunction enjoining enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) and beneficial ownership reporting rule.  As a result, the nationwide preliminary injunction originally granted by the district court is once again in effect pending consideration of the DOJ’s appeal by the Fifth Circuit’s merits panel.Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Reinstates CTA Injunction Pending Oral Arguments in March; FinCEN January 13 Deadline on Hold

On December 18, 2025, the President of the United States signed into law the Holding Foreign Insiders Accountable Act (“HFIAA”), making officers and directors of foreign private issuers (“FPIs”) subject to public reporting of holdings of, and transactions in, the issuers’ equity securities under Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). The new law will become effective on March 18, 2026.Continue Reading Section 16(a) Insider Reporting: Legislation Ends Foreign Private Issuer Exemption

Form 20-F is the form used for an annual report of a foreign private issuer (“FPI”) filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC” or the “Commission”). This alert memorandum summarizes considerations that will affect the preparation of the annual report on Form 20-F for the year ending on December 31, 2025 (the “2025 20‑F”) and certain other developments pertinent to FPIs.Continue Reading Preparing an Annual Report on Form 20-F – Guide for 2026

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

This article was authored by J.T. Ho and Helena K. Grannis from Cleary Gottlieb & Kyle Pinder from Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP.

On September 15, 2025, the Office of Mergers and Acquisitions of the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance permitted a novel approach to increase retail shareholder voting when it granted a no action letter request from Exxon Mobil Corporation.Continue Reading Applying A Retail Voting Program in Practice

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 AgendaContinue 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