Yesterday, the SEC approved a NYSE rule change that amends Section 703.12(II) of the NYSE Listed Company Manual to expand the circumstances under which rights may be listed on the exchange. Here’s an excerpt from the SEC order:
As described in more detail in the February 11, 2026 Notice, the Exchange proposes to amend Section 703.12(II) of the Manual to provide that for purposes of the Exchange’s listing standards, “rights” will refer to the privilege offered to recipients of such rights to subscribe for shares of a class of securities of such issuer that is listed or to be listed on the Exchange, regardless of whether the recipients of the rights are existing shareholders of record of such issuer.
The Exchange also proposes to permit the listing of a right where the security into which such right is exercisable will be listed on the Exchange upon the exercise of the rights and such exercise is pursuant to a registration statement filed under the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act Registration Statement”) that has been declared effective by the Commission prior to or simultaneous with the listing of such rights (“Prospective Listing Rights”).
The Exchange further proposes related changes, among other things, to specify that listed rights may be issued to the initial recipient of such rights either with or without the payment of consideration by such initial recipients, to set forth numerical requirements for listing of Prospective Listing Rights, to provide that funds paid upon exercise of Prospective Listing Rights must be held in a trust account, and to establish a maximum listing period and specify conditions for delisting of Prospective Listing Rights.
This isn’t the first time the NYSE has proposed expanding the circumstances under which rights can be listed on the exchange – but prior iterations didn’t make it across the finish line. The exchange expects the update will “give issuers greater flexibility in structuring a rights offering as a capital raising tool” and will “provide a source of capital for the acquisition of assets.” Here are a few other details from the Notice:
The proposed provisions relating to Prospective Listing Rights mean that some listed rights may list and trade on the Exchange prior to the listing and trading of the securities for which such rights are exercisable. The Exchange believes that this amendment will give issuers greater flexibility in structuring a rights offering as a capital raising tool.
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the requirement that there be an effective Securities Act Registration Statement in relation to the exercise of the Prospective Listing Rights prior to or simultaneous to the listing of the Prospective Listing Rights would provide a significant investor protection as it would ensure that investors trading or exercising the Prospective Listing Rights would have access to the appropriate level of disclosure to enable them to make informed investment decisions. The Exchange notes that the issuer of the Prospective Listing rights will be required by law to update this Securities Act Registration Statement to reflect any material changes in the information required to be included therein that arise between the time of effectiveness of the Securities Act Registration Statement and the exercise of the Prospective Listing Rights, thereby ensuring that investors trading the Prospective Listing Rights on the Exchange will have access to current information about the issuer on a continuous basis.
Any security underlying a Prospective Listing Right will be required to meet applicable initial listing standards set forth in Section 102.00 or Section 103.00. Prospective Listing Rights would only be eligible for initial listing if, at the time of initial listing, such Prospective Listing Rights meet the following initial listing requirements: (i) at least 1,000,000 rights issued; (ii) an opening trading price of at least $1.00 per Prospective Listing Right; (iii) market value of publicly-held securities of at least $10 million, and (iv) at least 400 public holders of round lots.
The Exchange notes that the proposed distribution requirements are identical to those required
for securities to be listed under the “equity” standards (i.e., for trading on the NYSE’s trading floor) under Section 703.19 (“Other Securities”) of the Manual. The required $10 million in market value of publicly-held securities proposed initial listing requirement for Prospective Listing Rights exceeds the $4 million total market value for securities listed under the “equity” standards for securities listed under Section 703.19.
As proposed, any funds paid upon exercise of Prospective Listing Rights by the holders thereof must be held in a trust account controlled by an independent custodian until consummation of the transaction in connection with which such Prospective Listing Rights are being exercised. The Prospective Listing Rights must provide by their terms that the funds held in trust will promptly be returned to the holders who have submitted the required exercise price in the event that the transaction agreement is terminated or is not consummated within one year of the initial listing of such Prospective Listing Rights.
– Liz Dunshee
This summer, the Nevada Secretary of State is launching Phase 2 of its new business portal – Orion – which was first announced back in 2023 and began an initial rollout last December for UCC forms.
“Orion” is a nod to Nevada’s first “territorial secretary,” Orion Clemens. You may not have heard of Orion Clemens, but you have probably heard of his younger brother Samuel – better known as Mark Twain. With this new portal, Orion’s fame will no doubt eclipse his brother’s for generations to come. (Okay, maybe not “eclipse,” but being honored with a business licensing website is better than nothing, and it is generous for Nevada to bestow this honor even though Clemens eventually left Nevada and lived out his days in the superior state of Iowa.)
The summer launch will change the filing process for business licenses, articles of incorporation, registrations, certificate requests, etc. If you are making filings in Nevada, it is important to know that new forms are required. The website says:
– There are new, easier to understand forms! Please note that the new ORION system will only accept the updated filing forms.
– Forms previously used in SilverFlume will not be accepted after launch.
– To help you prepare, links to all new forms will be updated on NVSOS.gov at lease 30 days prior to go-live.
– Liz Dunshee
In remarks last week at the MFA Legal & Compliance Conference, the SEC’s newly minted Enforcement Director, David Woodcock, outlined how he intends to lead the Division and what that means for current enforcement priorities. Here’s an excerpt:
As a matter of first principles, my goals are aligned to those of Chairman Atkins: to return the enforcement program back to basics. That means vigorously protecting investors and safeguarding markets, while also providing transparency and certainty to those we regulate.
A quick aside, there has been considerable attention paid to the decline in the number of cases brought over the last several years. Let me be clear: this Commission has deliberately shifted toward an emphasis on quality over quantity, and I fully support that direction.
Our focus is, and will remain, on protecting investors and safeguarding markets from real harm. That means identifying and stopping fraud and manipulation in all its forms—for instance, offering frauds, accounting and disclosure fraud, insider trading, market manipulation, fraud by foreign actors targeting U.S. markets and investors, and breaches of fiduciary duties by advisers misusing client assets.
To emphasize the Division’s focus on rooting out fraud, David has reinstituted the “Retail Fraud Working Group” – which focuses on protecting retail investors and strengthening coordination with state and federal partners. The speech says we’ll hear more on this in the coming weeks.
Another key takeaway from the speech is that the Commission is committed to distinguishing fraud from errors – and calibrating remedies accordingly. But investigative targets who want to try to show that their missteps were unintentional will have to be able to make a case with evidence and facts. According to these remarks, the Division will also look favorably on self-reporting and cooperation. Here’s more detail on that point:
A company that self-reports, cooperates fully, and remediates will not be treated the same as one that conceals or obstructs.
The takeaway is simple: engage early, engage seriously, and engage candidly. If your client operates in a gray area, take advantage of the Commission’s stated commitment to pre-enforcement dialogue. If we misunderstand your business model, use that opportunity to clarify. The days when a subpoena was our primary tool of communication are behind us.
That being said, I want to emphasize that the Division’s staff are some of the finest securities lawyers anywhere. Zealous client advocacy by defense counsel is wanted and expected, but I ask that you respect the Division chain of command, and not assume that you as counsel have a perfect understanding of the Commission’s priorities and what cases will or will not ultimately be brought. Similarly, respect and dialogue go both ways. You should treat our staff with the utmost respect, because that is how we aim to treat you.
Check out this Cleary memo for more color on David Woodcock’s impact on the Division and its priorities.
– Liz Dunshee
We don’t blog much about Delaware Superior Court decisions, but in this D&O Diary blog, Kevin LaCroix highlights a recent case that’s worth a read. Here’s Kevin’s intro:
One of the perennial D&O insurance issues involves the question whether “disgorgement” amounts awarded in SEC proceedings represent “penalties” for which insurance coverage is precluded. In the latest example of a case involving these issues, the Delaware Superior Court recently held, in reliance on the statutory provisions defining the SEC’s authority to seek monetary remedies, that the disgorgement amounts and prejudgment interest awarded against a large media company are not “penalties” for which coverage is precluded. As discussed below, the court’s analysis of the issues, and its reference to the relevant statutory provisions, is both detailed and instructive.
In explaining the decision and its implications, Kevin says:
Although I continue to view the Delaware Superior Court as generally favorable to policyholders, I don’t think this generalization explains the court’s decision here. I don’t think the court’s decision here can be understood as yet another example of this court’s policyholder proclivity.
The court’s reasoning here about whether or not “disgorgement” is a “penalty,” and therefore precluded from coverage, is based on the language of the statutory provisions authorizing the monetary remedies the SEC may seek. The court found a distinction in the statutory language between “penalties” on the one hand and “disgorgement” on the other, and, more importantly for purposes of the issues in dispute here, the court found further that the words used in the relevant policy provision “mirror” those securities law statutes. Both the statute and the policy provision, the court said, “delineate” between penalties on the one hand and disgorgement on the other.
In other words, the court’s decision is grounded in the relevant statutory provisions and corresponding policy language. Moreover, this connection to the relevant statutory provisions was sufficient for the court to reject the insurer’s attempt to rely on seemingly contradictory dictionary definitions of the term “penalties.”
As Kevin notes, the insurer is likely to appeal – and disputes on this issue are likely to continue. Here are his parting thoughts:
I suspect that in the future policyholders seeking coverage for disgorgement amounts will try to marshal the arguments that were successful here – that is, that the relevant statutory authority allowing the SEC to seek monetary remedies draws a distinction between “penalties” on the one hand, and disgorgement on the other hand, and that the relevant policy language “mirrors” this distinction.
– Liz Dunshee
In this 27-minute episode of the Women Governance Trailblazers podcast, Courtney Kamlet and I spoke with Suzanne Miglucci, who is a board-readiness coach, Chair of the NACD’s Research Triangle Chapter, and has held CEO, CMO and independent director roles at various companies. We discussed:
1. Suzanne’s career highlights from her various roles, including her time as CEO of Charles & Colvard and her time as CMO at ChannelAdvisor.
2. Leveraging technology and trusted resources to stay informed on current governance issues.
3. Tips for expanding and maintaining a professional network.
4. Top three pieces of advice for C-suite leaders who are seeking executive coaching or board readiness training.
5. Suzanne’s advice for the next generation of women governance trailblazers.
To listen to any of our prior episodes of Women Governance Trailblazers, visit the podcast page on TheCorporateCounsel.net or use your favorite podcast app. If there are governance trailblazers whose career paths and perspectives you’d like to hear more about, Courtney and I always appreciate recommendations! Drop me an email at liz@thecorporatecounsel.net.
– Liz Dunshee
Proxy advisors are back in the crosshairs, as a follow-up to the executive order that Dave blogged about in December. Earlier this month, in response to the executive order, the Department of Labor published a technical release – TR 2026-01 – that says that certain services that proxy advisors provide may cause them to be “fiduciaries” with respect to ERISA plans.
I don’t claim to know a whole lot about ERISA, but one thing I do know is that being deemed a plan fiduciary is a pretty onerous prospect. This Sidley memo summarizes key takeaways from the new guidance:
– Proxy Advisory Firms May Be Functional Fiduciaries. The DOL cautions that proxy advisory firms may be considered “functional fiduciaries” under ERISA sections 3(21)(A)(i) and (ii) if they exercise authority or control of the exercise of shareholder rights attributable to shares that constitute “plan assets” under ERISA or provide advice on how to exercise proxy rights attributable to shares owned by ERISA plans.
– Proxy Advisory Firms That Exercise Control or Authority Over the Exercise of Shareholder Rights Will Be Functional Fiduciaries. The DOL confirmed that proxy advisory firms that have discretion or control over shareholder rights attributable to ERISA plans (e.g., proxy advisory firms that control voting policies or the casting of votes) will be considered functional fiduciaries under ERISA section 3(21)(A)(i).
– Proxy Advisory Firms Generally Are Investment Advice Fiduciaries Under the Five-Part Test. The DOL confirmed that proxy advisory firms will likely be considered investment advice fiduciaries under the DOL’s five-part test (discussed in more detail in our prior Update). Under the five-part test, a person is a fiduciary only if (1) they render advice to a plan as to the value of securities or other property or make recommendations as to investing in, purchasing, or selling securities or other property; (2) on a regular basis; (3) pursuant to a mutual agreement, arrangement, or understanding with the plan that (4) the advice will serve as a primary basis for investment decisions with respect to the plan’s assets; and (5) the advice will be individualized based on the particular needs of the plan. With the caveat that the ultimate analysis depends on the specific facts and circumstances, the DOL takes the position that proxy advisory firms that provide individualized advice to ERISA plans as to how to exercise shareholder rights on a regular basis will generally satisfy the five-part test.
– State Law Preemption. In light of a number of recent state laws seeking to regulate proxy advisory firms, the DOL provided guidance on the application of ERISA’s preemption clause to state laws mandating disclosure by proxy advisory firms when they make recommendations for reasons other than maximizing returns. The release provides that a requirement that proxy advisory firms disclose when their research or recommendations take nonfinancial factors into consideration would not sufficiently affect ERISA plan administration because proxy advisors are already precluded from taking actions with respect to ERISA plans that would require such disclosures. As such, the DOL concludes that such a law would not be preempted.
This Ropes & Gray memo is recommending that asset managers and ERISA plan fiduciaries consider taking the following steps:
1. Audit existing proxy advisor arrangements against each prong of the DOL’s five-part investment advice test as interpreted under TR 2026-01 to determine whether the arrangement may create an inadvertent fiduciary relationship — and whether restructuring to avoid fiduciary status is appropriate;
2. Assess potential exposure under ERISA § 405 (as a co-fiduciary) where the proxy advisor may be deemed to be a fiduciary; and
3. Monitor for future rulemakings that may amend the regulations to take a harderline on the use of non-pecuniary factors and the tiebreaker test.
I can’t say whether this will cause investment managers to rely less on proxy advisors or affect the broader voting advice ecosystem – but it does seem like another instance of tightening the screws. The Ropes & Gray memo notes that the guidance could be a prelude to a rule proposal.
– Liz Dunshee
Earlier this week, the US Supreme Court heard arguments in Sripetch v. SEC, which could resolve a split between the 2nd and 9th Circuits about limits on the SEC to use disgorgement as a remedy in enforcement cases. This Bloomberg article explains the importance of this remedy to the agency:
The dispute will shape a panoply of SEC cases in which victims aren’t easy to pinpoint, from low-profile record-keeping violations to major insider trading allegations. The SEC used disgorgement to secure orders for more than $6 billion in fiscal 2024 and almost $11 billion last year.
This O’Melveny memo summarizes the lead-up to the case and notes it’s the third time in the past decade that SCOTUS has addressed the SEC’s equitable remedies. According to the Bloomberg article, the Court seemed skeptical about taking disgorgement off the table, even though tracking down specific victims of securities fraud is challenging (if not impossible). Here’s an excerpt:
But even Justice Clarence Thomas, who had voted to bar the use of disgorgement altogether in 2020, indicated he isn’t a sure bet this time around. Thomas told a lawyer arguing for new restrictions that “the world has changed in this area” because of a statute Congress passed in the aftermath of the 2020 ruling.
Although Monday’s session wasn’t definitive, the court spent less than a half hour questioning the Justice Department lawyer representing the SEC in its bid for broad disgorgement powers. That’s potentially a positive sign for the government from a court that often spends more than an hour peppering government lawyers with skeptical queries.
We’ll stay tuned for the opinion…
– Liz Dunshee
One person who I’ve missed seeing and hearing from at this year’s various events is Cicely LaMothe. I was delighted that she was able to join Dave Lynn and me for our latest episode of our podcast, “Mentorship Matters with Dave & Liz.”
As our readers may recall, Cicely retired from the SEC in December after 24 years of service. During her time at the agency, Cicely served in many senior leadership roles, including as Acting Director of Corp Fin. Listen to this 24-minute episode to hear:
1. Cicely’s leadership experiences at the SEC, including favorite memories.
2. The role of mentorship in Cicely’s career trajectory and achievements.
3. How mentorship dynamics evolve as your career advances, and how to keep growing through these changes.
4. Maintaining positive relationships as practitioners move between the public and private sectors.
5. Valuable mentorship advice for anyone looking to progress in the corporate and securities compliance field.
Thank you to everyone who has been listening to the podcast! If you have a topic that you think we should cover or guest who you think would be great for the podcast, feel free to contact Dave or me by LinkedIn or email.
– Liz Dunshee
As I noted just yesterday, disclosure rationalization is an important aspect of SEC Chair Paul Atkins’ goal to “transform” the SEC rulebook to help Make IPOs Great Again. To that end, we’re tracking responses to his call for comments on Regulation S-K – which is where most of the line-item disclosure requirements are spelled out.
The SEC has received over 100 comments so far! These include letters from individual investors, researchers, and many other key market participants and trade groups, such as:
– Business Roundtable
– Center for Audit Quality
– Council of Institutional Investors
– International Corporate Governance Network
– Nasdaq – Also see Nasdaq’s blog with 5 key takeaways from their letter
– Society for Corporate Governance
– US Chamber of Commerce
One thing that struck me when scanning through the letters is that there is not much across-the-board consensus on what the SEC should do and how onerous and detailed the disclosure requirements should be. That’s not too surprising given the diverse perspectives of the groups submitting comments – the corporate issuer crowd tends to want to go one way and the investor crowd tends to want to go the other way. But it does underscore why the SEC is trying to check all the procedural and informational boxes during its current rulemaking endeavors.
This Goodwin blog highlights topics that many of the letters address and the divergent views that are presented. Here are selected excerpts (check out the entire blog, co-authored by our very own Dave Lynn, for more details):
1. Principles Based Disclosure Versus Prescriptive Disclosure – Some commenters advocate for grounding disclosure requirements in materiality and urge the SEC to adopt a principles-based approach that would allow companies to determine, based on their specific facts and circumstances, whether particular information is material to investors.
Commenters who oppose a shift to the principles-based approach counter that increased company discretion creates a risk of under-disclosure.
Several commenters support a hybrid approach, proposing the elimination of clearly immaterial or redundant disclosure requirements while maintaining specified disclosure requirements in key areas.
2. Specific Line-Item Recommendations – The disclosure framework debate is also found in comments regarding specific line-item disclosure requirements under Regulation S-K, where views of commenters diverge on whether particular requirements should be reduced, eliminated, or expanded. The divide is sharpest between those advocating for a streamlined, materiality-focused disclosure framework and those emphasizing the importance of maintaining or enhancing standardized requirements to support comparability and investor protection.
3. Safe Harbors and Liability Reform – Commenters expressed differing viewpoints on whether securities law liability drives the prevalence of boilerplate and immaterial disclosure.
Some commenters argue that litigation risk is a primary driver of defensive disclosure practices, contending that the risk of securities fraud claims encourages companies to include generic, overly broad or immaterial information to mitigate liability exposure. As a result, disclosure is often drafted to satisfy legal requirements rather than to communicate material information. To address these concerns, these commenters advocate for expanded safe harbors and interpretive guidance, including protections for omission of widely known or non-company-specific risks; enhanced coverage for forward-looking statements; and broader, materiality based safe harbors.
Other commenters oppose the creation or expansion of safe harbors from anti-fraud liability, arguing that such liability is fundamental to the integrity of the disclosure regime.
4. ESG and Governance Disclosures – Several comment letters raise the concern that certain Regulation S-K requirements function as indirect regulation rather than as a means for providing material disclosure to investors. This tension is particularly acute with respect to ESG-related disclosures, in which commenters expressed differing views as to the purpose of these disclosure requirements.
5. Scaling and Differentiation by Company Size and Industry – A recurring theme in the comments is whether Regulation S-K should apply uniformly to all companies or whether the disclosure requirements should be scaled to a company’s size, stage of development, or industry.
Several commenters argue that smaller and newly public companies face disproportionate compliance burdens under the current disclosure requirements. These commenters call for scaling the disclosure framework based on company size, with specific proposals including raising filer thresholds, exempting smaller issuers from certain rules (e.g., executive compensation, cybersecurity, and climate-related disclosures), and reducing reporting frequency.
Other commenters express concern that scaled or industry-specific disclosure requirements can negatively affect comparability and investor protection. . . . These commenters recommend streamlining disclosure requirements for all companies to avoid information asymmetry and loss of comparability.
6. Modernization of Disclosure Format – Commenters also addressed the format and delivery of public company disclosures, particularly regarding whether the SEC should expand, maintain, or scale back requirements for structured, machine-readable data such as XBRL.
Some commenters express concerns about the cost and complexity of structured data, recommending substantially scaling back or eliminating XBRL tagging. Proposals include limiting Inline XBRL to primary financial statement line items, eliminating narrative block tagging, and exempting small reporting companies and nonaccelerated filers entirely.
Other commenters emphasize the importance of structured, machine‑readable data for enabling comparability, automation, and AI‑driven analysis. They recommend expanding XBRL to currently untagged narrative sections, including MD&A, risk factors, and qualitative proxy disclosures, arguing that limiting XBRL would increase reliance on manual data extraction and reduce comparability and reliability.
I know a lot of people in our community are investing many hours and brain cells in making suggestions, so it really will be interesting to see how the SEC’s proposal – if and when it’s issued – reflects the feedback. I’m pleased to have worked with my Cooley teammates on this letter – see this blog for a summary of the recommendations – and I am also pleased that it’s now in the SEC’s court!
– Liz Dunshee
During the ABA Business Law Section’s “Dialogue with the Director” last Friday, Corp Fin Director Jim Moloney mentioned that the Staff is “completely rethinking how registered offerings work.” Of course, Jim’s remarks were subject to the standard SEC speaker disclaimers, but they matched up pretty well with the speech I shared yesterday from SEC Chair Paul Atkins, where he said he’s instructed the Commission Staff to evaluate the ideas of:
– Adopting a regulatory IPO “on-ramp” that supplements the concept that Congress designed in the JOBS Act, and
– Providing nearly all public companies with an easier path to “shelf registration,” which allows them to access the public markets quickly and when market conditions are ideal.
Hat tip to Meredith for taking a deep dive into what this could look like – *could* being a key term since nothing has been proposed, let alone adopted. She found this 2015 interview with former SEC Commissioner Steven Wallman where he discusses the “company registration model” – and how the JOBS Act got us only part of the way to what could be a much simpler system. Here’s an excerpt:
On priorities, as an example, I thought it was very important to work on capital formation issues. And so I ended up chairing the Commission’s first ever Advisory Committee on Capital Formation. I’m proud and pleased that some of its core recommendations and much of the direction it suggested for evolution of the securities laws has been implemented since the last decade-and-a-half. Some of the recommendations, like full S-3 shelf registration for global issuers has developed over time to mimic what we had proposed in terms of a “company registration” concept.
The current law is still more complex and tortured in some respects than what’s needed if we simply implemented company registration, but in result it still arrives at almost the same place – just through a more maze-like process. We had proposed a concept of registering companies, not securities, — a Copernican shift from the current model — that would eliminate some of the transaction-based complexity of the current structure and make it much more streamlined and simplified. But the current
law, within at least an order of magnitude, has directionally moved to the same place we had suggested.
Some of the regulations that have now been implemented as part of the JOBS Act were among other concepts that we had reviewed and promoted. So I feel quite proud about all that, that we’ve moved in the direction that that the Advisory Committee suggested, albeit under different names, with other kinds of nomenclature and semantics, and over a timeframe that is overly long compared to what could have been done had we just moved forward in a timely manner then. But sometimes big ideas and novel approaches take time to acclimate and actually move through the process, especially when you have
regulatory systems that almost by definition are primarily backwards looking and influenced heavily by incumbents as the ones with a current stake in the process. It takes a bold staff and thoughtful regulatory body leadership to be what some would — perhaps even attempting to be disparaging in these circumstances — call “adventurous.” But I have always thought the Commission up to it.
In the interview, Steven also discusses his efforts to modernize SEC rules to reflect new technologies – proving that the more things change, the more they stay the same! Check out these resources for more about the ideas that were floated on the company registration model back around “the turn of the century” (i.e., the late 90s and early 2000s):
– Private placement exemptions in a company registration model
– Letter from the Committee on Securities Regulation of The Association of the Bar of the City of New York in response to the SEC’s Release Nos. 33-7606A and 34-40632A, dated November 13, 1998, which requested comments on proposed rules for the registration of securities offerings under the Securities Act of 1933 and related provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
– Liz Dunshee
