We recently addressed the buzz around prediction markets in the July-August 2026 issue of The Corporate Counsel, which is on store shelves now – just kidding, you can only get access to The Corporate Counsel newsletter by emailing us at info@ccrcorp.com or calling us at 800-737-1271!
In writing the article about prediction markets, I learned quite a bit that I did not know about this rapidly evolving area. Here my top five highlights:
1. Prediction markets are nothing new. Beyond the obvious fact that futures and forward contracts have been fueling speculative bubbles for ages, the modern concept of prediction markets dates back to the late 1980s in the U.S., when I was busy wearing paisley shirts and listening to The Cure in college. I wish I could have entered into an event contract back then predicting that The Cure’s frontman Robert Smith would do a collaboration with Olivia Rodrigo in 2026 – I could be retired at this point. Even if I can’t be retired, I can still very much enjoy that epic collaboration!
2. The CFTC is in the midst of actively updating its rulebook for prediction markets in light of the growth and popularity of these markets in recent years. As I mentioned a few weeks back, the solo CFTC Chairman is acting with a one-man-band level of proficiency, seeking comment on a wide range of issues concerning the regulation of the event contracts that are traded on prediction markets, issuing a Staff advisory directed at the Designated Contract Markets where the event contracts are traded, and proposing rules in June that specifically address the types of event contracts that can be listed on CFTC-registered prediction markets.
3. While the CFTC is reviewing its regulatory purview and working to update its rules, the states are fighting for their piece of the regulatory pie. Last month, 44 state attorneys general submitted a comment letter to the CFTC arguing that the agency does not have any authority over sports-related event contracts. The attorneys general representing Florida, Georgia, New Hampshire, Missouri and Texas did not sign that letter.
4. Prediction markets obviously also operate internationally, and so they face a myriad of regulatory approaches outside of the U.S. Some prediction markets only operate outside of the U.S. so as to avoid CFTC or state oversight. Surprisingly, even though we have had prediction markets operating in the U.S. for over thirty years, in many ways it feels like we are still in the early stages of development when it comes to the regulation of prediction markets. It will be very interesting to see how this all unfolds.
5. The problem of information asymmetry is a big concern in prediction markets. Earlier this year, the CFTC’s Division of Enforcement issued an advisory following the release of two enforcement cases involving the misuse of nonpublic information and fraud with respect to certain event contracts, warning Designated Contract Markets to be vigilant in their surveillance and enforcement of rules addressing these areas. As I note in the article, the potential insider trading complications of prediction markets have recently come to the attention of public company general counsels and outside counsel as they now have had to grapple with the ever-present problem of rampant information asymmetry in the markets. Overall, I think that companies need to pay attention to this issue and revise the appropriate policies accordingly, but perhaps there is a greater need to educate employees about the risks of using inside information when engaging in prediction market transactions.
I encourage you to read the full article, “Prediction Markets: What Should Companies Do Now?” in the July-August 2026 issue of The Corporate Counsel newsletter. Please feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions!
The July-August issue of the Deal Lawyers newsletter was just sent to the printer and is also available online to members of DealLawyers.com who subscribe to the electronic format. This issue includes the following articles:
– Chancery Decision Highlights Need for a “Remedy Hierarchy” in a Post-Closing Purchase Price Adjustment Provision
– A Purchase-Price Adjustment Is Not the End of the Road with Indemnification on the Table
– Are Hints Disclosures? Delaware Supreme Court Revives M&A Fraud Claim Despite Buyer’s Red Flags
– AI Meets National Security — Implications for Private Equity and M&A
The Deal Lawyers newsletter is always timely & topical – and something you can’t afford to be without to keep up with the rapid-fire developments in the world of M&A. If you don’t subscribe to Deal Lawyers, please email us at info@ccrcorp.com or call us at 800-737-1271.
Yesterday, I dropped my youngest daughter off at college for her junior year, bringing to a close a decade of participating in that time-honored ritual of moving my children into on-campus housing. It is an experience that always involves a distinct mix of excitement, chaos, trepidation and relief. While, as a parent, I have always experienced mixed emotions on this day, this year felt particularly poignant, as my wife and I wrapped up a decade-long chapter of our lives that has most certainly seen its ups and downs. There will no doubt be plenty of move-ins to come (including into off-campus housing for our daughter’s senior year), but there is something unique about carting plastic totes and blue bags into campus housing in a rushed attempt to beat the deadline and have time to assemble furniture comprised of one thousand parts!
I too am feeling the back-to-school pressure this week, as the course I co-teach kicks off tomorrow. Now in my sixth year of teaching the course, I feel the same sort of back-to-school jitters that I am sure that my daughter feels going back to college. The course focuses specifically on exempt securities offerings, so I have been thinking about what to say to the class about the SEC’s current agenda as it relates to the exemptions from the registration requirements of the securities laws.
Obviously, the biggest news on that front happened just last week, when the Commission proposed Regulation Crypto Assets, which contemplates two exemptions from the registration requirements of the Securities Act for certain investment contracts involving crypto assets. It is not that often that we see the Commission adopting an entirely new set of exemptive rules, especially without a Congressional directive (such as the JOBS Act), so this is certainly a big deal to note for the class.
As for the SEC’s other actions on the exempt offering front, much remains to be seen. During the course of the class this semester, we will no doubt be discussing a number of the items that the SEC has identified on its latest Reg Flex Agenda, as some or all of these proposed rulemakings may see the light of day. These proposed rulemakings, all expected by October 2026, include:
On the topic of Rule 144, we expect the SEC to propose rule changes that would expand the safe harbor for resales of restricted and control securities to provide for more instances in which the safe harbor would be available to those selling securities who are not an issuer, underwriter or dealer. We certainly hope that this effort will involve revisiting the dreaded Rule 144(i), particularly in the context of de-SPAC companies, so that investors will have improved liquidity in those situations. It is also possible that the Commission will reconsider the definition of “accredited investor,” consistent with an overall push to expand investor access to private capital.
As for the proposal to update exempt offering pathways, we expect that the Commission would seek to build on the exempt offering harmonization rulemaking from 2020 to expand opportunities for issuers to raise capital in transactions exempt from the registration requirements of the Securities Act. This rulemaking could involve raising offering thresholds in existing rules (such as Regulation A, Regulation CF or other exemptions), creating new offering exemptions, and revisiting conditions for existing exemptions, as well as other potential changes.
On the topic of enhancing retail exposure to private markets, in addition to revisiting the accredited investor definition, we may see the SEC propose changes on the regulated entity side (e.g., investment advisers, funds, brokers) to make it easier for retail investors to participate in private capital transactions.
Finally, the Commission has indicated a willingness to tackle the age-old problem of finders, which has been a regulatory gray area for the entire time that I have been practicing securities law. The rulemaking would likely provide more clear guidance as to what activities finders could engage in without having to register as a “broker” under the Exchange Act.
Suffice it to say, this semester promises to be a very active one on the regulatory front when it comes to exempt offerings, so we should have no shortage of current events to discuss! I hope your back-to-school experience, whatever it may be, goes well over the coming days.
As we shift into back-to-school mode and the summer winds to a close, I anticipate more discussion of what we can expect next from the SEC as it pursues its regulatory agenda focused on public companies and capital raising. At the risk of undoubtedly being wrong in my prognostications, here is what I am anticipating over the next few months.
As we approach the final stages in anticipation of the mid-term elections in November, there will no doubt be an effort to demonstrate progress across the regulatory spectrum, and the SEC will certainly be a part of that. To that end, we could expect to see the SEC move to adoption of the semiannual reporting, filer status and registered offering reform proposals. Moving these proposals to final rule amendments in such a short period of time is a monumental task, but it appears that the Staff has dedicated significant resources to these projects to move them forward quickly. It is difficult to predict exactly when these proposals will be adopted and what sort of transition periods may be contemplated, but it is conceivable that some or all of these rule changes will be in effect going into calendar-year 2027.
The Spring 2026 Reg Flex Agenda also contemplates a slew of proposals by October of this year, which would likely include the executive compensation disclosure rulemaking that the SEC signaled could be coming back in June 2025. Based on everything that the Staff and Commissioners have said and the comments received to date, this proposal could involve a significant paring back of the executive compensation disclosure requirements. Given the timing here, we are not likely to see the relief in time for the 2027 proxy season.
Also slated for October is the “Rationalization of Disclosure Practices” rulemaking, which I read to be the Regulation S-K project. I tend to think that proposing amendments to Regulation S-K in October is a very ambitious goal given the scope of this project, but I know that the Staff is working very hard on this effort, so it is certainly possible. As with the executive compensation disclosure project, a proposal in the Fall of this year means that we likely would not see actual changes on the disclosure requirements until the middle of 2027 at the earliest.
Finally, perhaps the most mysterious of the SEC proposals slated for this Fall are the “Shareholder Proposal Modernization” and “Amendments to Certain Proxy Rules” proposals listed in the Spring Reg Flex Agenda. I do not think that it is too dramatic to say that the fate of Rule 14a-8 hangs in the balance with the shareholder proposal rulemaking, and we still do not have a clear picture of whether the SEC will go in the direction of amendments to Rule 14a-8 or a repeal of the rule. We can also expect proxy rule changes targeting proxy advisory firms, based on the Executive Order issued at the end of last year. Given that we are now on the eve of potential proposals, we will not see changes taking effect before the 2027 proxy season.
For the latest discussion of all of these events as they are happening, go back to school and sign up for our 2026 Proxy Disclosure Conference and 23rd Annual Executive Compensation Conference. These Conferences are taking place in Orlando on October 12-13 and via live webcast.
On Friday, the SEC posted a new Fee Rate Advisory announcing that the fees issuers must pay to register securities will decrease from $138.10 per million dollars to $87.00 per million dollars, effective October 1, 2026.
This new fee rate applies to the registration of securities under Section 6(b) of the Securities Act, the repurchase of securities under Section 13(e) of the Exchange Act, and proxy solicitations and specified tender offers under Section 14(g) of the Exchange Act.
Though Chancellor Allen characterized a Caremark duty-of-oversight claim as “possibly the most difficult theory in corporation law upon which a plaintiff might hope to win a judgment,” Delaware courts appeared to be more accommodating to Caremark claims for a number of years. Among the cases in which the Delaware Court of Chancery allowed Caremark claims to proceed past the pleading stage was the derivative litigation filed against Boeing’s board alleging inadequate oversight of safety issues, which ended in 2021 with one of the largest derivative lawsuit settlements ever, per the D&O Diary.
After a mechanical failure in 2024 involving a jet’s door plug, a new derivative suit was again filed against Boeing directors and officers, alleging oversight claims premised on Caremark. Plaintiffs did not make a demand on the board, so, in a mid-August decision addressing the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Chancery Court analyzed whether more than half of the board faced a substantial likelihood of liability on the claims, which would make, as plaintiffs argued, a demand on the board futile and therefore excused. Vice Chancellor Zurn found that they did not, and dismissed the claims.
“Caremark liability centers on a particular type of bad faith: ‘intentional dereliction of duty’ or ‘conscious disregard for one’s responsibilities’.” “Only ‘a sustained or systematic failure of the board to exercise oversight . . . will establish the lack of good faith that is a necessary condition to liability.’” The directors must know that they were not discharging their fiduciary obligations. Caremark’s scienter requirement differentiates disloyal bad faith from gross negligence that breaches the duty of care.
Plaintiffs’ allegations fell short on every front, failing to support a rational inference that the directors acted in bad faith. Rejecting plaintiffs’ theory that nearly every update the board received about Boeing’s manufacturing risks amounted to an ignored red flag, the Court observed that they sought to “recast[] the volume and depth of Boeing’s reporting from a best practice into evidence of disloyalty.”
The Court also found many of the purported red flags too disconnected from the January 2024 incident, explaining that a red flag must be “sufficiently similar” to the corporate trauma it precedes, not a general risk. And the Court rejected plaintiffs’ contention that Boeing consciously shirked regulatory compliance for profit, noting that the pleading-stage record showed the company’s production plans were based on informed management assessments of risk and feasibility.
The blog characterizes this decision as a “welcome reminder” that a “good-faith effort to implement and monitor an oversight system, appropriately documented, remains a bulwark against Caremark liability.” A well-documented board process may help avoid Caremark claims altogether if the documents produced in response to a books-and-records request dissuade plaintiffs’ counsel from filing litigation.
This HLS Blog from some of the folks at FTI Consulting addresses five fallacies about controlled companies and how they interact with investors and the capital markets.
Fallacy: Management and Board Members of Controlled Companies Are Unaffected by Public Criticism and the Threat of Shareholder Activism.
Fallacy: Signaling and Predictability Are Less Important for Controlled Companies Because There Are No Potential Repercussions.
Fallacy: Performance Alone Drives Valuation.
Fallacy: Everyone Running a Controlled Company Has the Same Views on Strategic Decisions.
Fallacy: Controlled Companies Don’t Need to Attract Capital or Sell the Stock.
Each of these is followed by an explanation, example and list of recommendations for controlled companies. For example, here is what the blog has to say on that last point above:
Explanation: Just because controlled companies don’t need investors to help them secure their votes doesn’t mean they’re insulated from capital markets or indifferent to valuation. Even in a controlled structure, companies still rely on public markets for financing, liquidity, employee compensation, and more. A depressed stock price can increase the cost of capital, reduce strategic flexibility, and have other negative impacts.
Example: In 2021, Meta began investing heavily into the metaverse, a strategy to become the next major computing platform that would allow users to participate in a persistent, immersive digital environment. Following $40 billion spent on the metaverse, Meta announced the “Year of Efficiency” in February 2023, effectively stopping its investments in the Metaverse. Despite being a controlled company, Meta publicly pivoted its capital allocation strategy in response to investor sentiment.
Recommendation for Controlled Companies: Show why the path forward is the right one for value creation. Controlled companies have underperformed widely held public companies on both five- and 10-year total shareholder return metrics. Controlled companies must communicate strategic decisions in terms of value to all shareholders if they want to build lasting confidence. This does not mean that all capital expenditures are frowned upon – it just means shareholders should understand the return on investment and how a capital expenditure fits into the company’s broader long-term strategy.
I think controlled companies and the attorneys who represent them will appreciate hearing these myths called out, since they’ve probably experienced at least one of these scenarios. I’d also add another myth: That controlled companies don’t receive shareholder proposals. Even smaller controlled companies that aren’t big, well-recognized brands aren’t immune from shareholder proposals. (Though they may be more likely to decide to just put them to a vote.)
If you’re a banking analyst, I hope you studied your SAT vocab words! According to the WSJ, BofA’s CEO Brian Moynihan intentionally throws “obscure, archaic words fit for novelists or judges of bygone centuries” in his earnings call scripts. Delightful!
It’s no happenstance that Moynihan regularly jams words such as “gainsay,” “concomitant” and “fantods” into otherwise ordinary sentences when he addresses the street [. . .] Moynihan challenges himself to find a way to use certain vocabulary words on the calls, the people said. The more arcane, the better.
Moynihan has more than once used “gainsay,” or to declare something as untrue or invalid. One quarter he said the bank saw strong adviser productivity and “concomitant” growth in fee-based assets. Another quarter he said he didn’t “get fantods,” or rather that he wasn’t nervous. “A perspicacious analyst might wonder whether talk of inflation, recession and other factors would fructify in a slower spending growth,” Moynihan said in an analyst call in 2022.
While this may not be something other companies try (the article says transcript services can’t always keep up and throw in totally unrelated words!), the liberal arts major in me loves the idea of earnings calls being a reason to pull up the OED online to look up words! How wonderful in an age of so many AI slop summaries! Reading this article made me want to read more Michael Chabon books. Or The Stand by Stephen King. (I swear teachers and prep programs used to recommend that students read The Stand to study for the vocab portion of the SAT, but I can’t find any evidence of this on the internet!)
If this post seems a little silly and academic, it’s because it’s the last week of summer and that’s how I’m feeling! Like Meaghan, I am VERY READY for back-to-school this year.
Whether you’re feeling ready or not, to all with student-age children in the same boat, I wish you some lovely last days / weeks of summer, a smooth return to academics (plus sports, music, clubs, etc.), an easy carpool schedule and decent sleep for all!
Earlier this week, the Board of the Financial Accounting Foundation (FAF) named Hillary H. Salo as the next chair of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), the organization that establishes financial accounting and reporting standards for companies that follow GAAP (and is recognized by the SEC as the designated accounting standards setter for public companies). Succeeding Richard R. Jones, whose term concludes June 30, 2027, her term as chair will begin July 1, 2027, and conclude June 30, 2034. The announcement notes that Ms. Salo is a former KPMG Partner and currently serves as vice chair of the FASB and chair of the Emerging Issues Task Force.
Throughout her career, Ms. Salo has advanced high-quality financial reporting through roles as a standard setter, audit partner, regulator, and advisor. Since rejoining the FASB as technical director in 2020, she has played a central role in shaping and advancing the Board’s priorities and strengthening its engagement with stakeholders. Previously, she was an audit partner at KPMG LLP and held roles in the firm’s audit quality and professional practice and accounting advisory services groups.
Ms. Salo also served as a professional accounting fellow in the Office of the Chief Accountant at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). She began her career as a FASB post-graduate technical assistant after graduating with an undergraduate degree in business administration and a master’s degree in accountancy from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
At the same time, the Board of Trustees issued a call for nominations to fill the FASB member vacancy created by Ms. Salo’s appointment and noted that it is continuing its search for a FASB member to fill the vacancy that will be created by the expiration of Marsha Hunt’s second term on June 30, 2027.
I might as well continue on the themes of digital assets and accounting because – look! – there’s more! On Tuesday, the FASB announced that it published a proposed ASU (Accounting Standards Update) that would clarify how the definition of ‘cash equivalents’ applies to stablecoins and certain other digital assets.
During the 2025 FASB agenda consultation project and through other feedback, stakeholders noted uncertainty about whether certain digital assets, including stablecoins, meet the definition of cash equivalents under current generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). That uncertainty has led to diversity in practice.
To address that stakeholder feedback, the proposed ASU would provide illustrative examples to promote more consistent application of that definition and improve comparability among entities that elect to present qualifying digital assets as cash equivalents.
This is just clarifying guidance for entities that hold these digital assets; the proposal does not change the definition of ‘cash equivalents.’
That said, the relevance of this proposed ASU isn’t limited to organizations that hold digital assets. It also proposes expanding the disclosure requirements for cash equivalents more generally. Those requirements are not limited to digital assets, and they apply to all entities that present assets as cash equivalents, regardless of whether they are digital assets.
