Topic

M&A

SEC Staff Updates Schedule 13G Interpretive Guidance Addressing Routine Shareholder Engagement

The new CFIs (103.13, 103.14 and 103.15) address whether certain forms of shareholder engagement are consistent with the requirement under Exchange Act Rules 13d-1(b) and 13d-1(c) that a Schedule 13G filer certify that the subject securities “were not acquired and are not held for the purpose of or with the effect of changing or influencing the control of the issuer.” ,,, The new guidance, which arrives at the start of the fall engagement season, may help restore some of the dialogue between issuers and shareholders that has diminished over the past two proxy seasons.

Delaware Court of Chancery Holds That Statutory Safe Harbor Protects PBC Directors and Revlon’s Stockholder-Value-Maximization Mandate Does Not Apply to PBCs

Once a niche corporate form, the Delaware public benefit corporation (PBC) has become an increasingly significant feature of the corporate landscape, having been adopted by a number of prominent companies, including highly valued private issuers and established public companies. Until two days ago, however, the PBC statute had generated almost no case law on what…

SEC Staff Issues Additional Guidance on Shareholder Activism, Tender Offers, Proxy Matters and Crowdfunding

On July 9, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Corporation Finance (the “Staff”) issued a series of interpretations (“CFIs”) that update four sections of the Staff’s CFIs: Sections 13(d) and 13(g) and Regulation 13D-G Beneficial Ownership Reporting; Tender Offer Rules and Schedules; Proxy Rules and Schedules 14A/14C; and Regulation Crowdfunding.

In a Decision of First Impression, the Court of Chancery Applies Amended Section 144’s “Heightened” Director Exchange-Based Independence Presumption

The decision provides meaningful guidance on the interaction between Section 144’s new “heightened” presumption—that directors deemed independent under applicable national securities exchange rules are also presumed to be disinterested under Section 144—and Court of Chancery Rule 23.1’s well-established demand-futility standard.