On January 8, 2026, the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) submitted a proposed rule change to the Securities and Exchange Commission that would revise the initial listing requirements detailed in Sections 101 and 102 of the NYSE American Company Guide.Continue Reading NYSE American Proposes Amendments to Initial Listing Standards

Unlike past years, companies are not facing new disclosure requirements for their upcoming 10-Ks and proxy statements, but the change in the SEC administration during 2025 brought with it other changes companies will need to address. This update summarizes things to keep in mind as you prepare your 10-K and 2026 annual meeting proxy statement, and previews potential significant changes that may materialize in the future.Continue Reading Things to Keep in Mind For Your Annual Report on Form 10-K and Proxy Statement

On December 18, 2025, the Holding Foreign Insiders Accountable Act (“HFIAA”) was enacted as part of the FY 2026 National Defense Authorization Act. This new law amends Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 78p(a), by extending insider reporting requirements to directors and officers of foreign private issuers (as such term is defined under the Exchange Act[1]) (“FPIs”), ending the exemption for directors and officers of FPIs from Section 16(a) reporting requirements. As a result, these individuals will now be required to disclose publicly their ownership of, and transactions in, securities of FPIs on Forms 3, 4 and 5, thus mirroring the obligations that insiders of domestic companies have under the Exchange Act.Continue Reading Section 16(a) Reporting Obligations to Apply to Officers and Directors of Foreign Private Issuers Starting March 18, 2026

Key Takeaways

On December 19, 2025, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) published a notice to solicit comments on the proposal to provide Nasdaq with limited discretion to deny initial listings even when applicants meet all stated listing requirements.[1] Nasdaq’s proposal stemmed from its observation of unusual trading in securities of certain companies, noting the SEC has imposed temporary trading suspensions pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, with respect to listed securities based upon concerns about potential market manipulation as a result of recommendations made to investors by unknown persons via social media platforms. Continue Reading Proposal Granting NASDAQ Discretion To Deny Initial Listings Even If Listings Requirements Are Satisfied

Bad behavior in the workplace is in many instances a legal wrong that leads to legal consequences. Sexual harassment, for example, leads to consequences under tort and employment law. But if the perpetrator is a director or officer of a Delaware corporation, does such bad behavior give rise to a claim by the corporation for breach of fiduciary duty against the miscreant fiduciary? The answer for now is “not always.” In Brola v. Lundgren, C.A. 2024-1108-LWW, 2025 WL 3439671 (Del. Ch. Dec. 1, 2025) (Will, V.C.), the Delaware Court of Chancery held that sexual harassment by a director or officer does not necessarily give rise to a corporate claim for breach of the duty of loyalty, even though the corporation may have suffered losses as a result of the fiduciary’s misconduct.Continue Reading Delaware Court of Chancery Holds that a Fiduciary’s Alleged Harassment Resulting in Corporate Loss Does Not Necessarily Equate to a Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Delaware Courts Continue to Scrutinize Noncompete Agreements

As previously reported (herehere and here), courts in Delaware, the once favored “employer-friendly” jurisdiction, have increasingly scrutinized and refused to enforce noncompete agreements. In recent cases, Delaware courts have continued this trend, this time focusing on forfeiture-upon-competition provisions in equity or profit incentive agreements that also include affirmative restrictive covenants. Two of these cases are Delaware Chancery Court noncompete cases. Following on the heels of the Delaware Supreme Court’s affirmation of the employee choice doctrine, three trial courts have held that forfeiture of equity results in a failure of consideration such that the affirmative restrictive covenants are unenforceable. The practical effect of these cases is to force companies to choose between forfeiture or affirmative restrictions when crafting their equity contracts with employees. We can expect further developments in Delaware noncompete law and its implications for drafting incentive units and noncompete agreements under Delaware law, as two of the three cases are now on appeal. Recent cases are discussed below.Continue Reading Delaware Courts Limit Noncompete Enforcement in Incentive Plans

State oversight of healthcare transactions is continuing to undergo a significant transformation. As tracked in our updated Healthcare Merger Matrix, the number of states implementing or considering expanding antitrust laws targeting proposed deals continues to rise.[1] For instance, Washington and Colorado’s premerger notification laws went into effect on July 27 and August 6, 2025, respectively, and Indiana recently modified its existing transaction notice law to exempt certain practitioner-owned practices.[2] Additionally, New Mexico enacted a permanent version of its temporary transaction notification law with enhanced oversight and enforcement.[3]Continue Reading State Antitrust Enforcement Roundup: Updates to Healthcare Merger Matrix; New Potential Legislation Targeting Private Equity and Other For-Profit Entities in Healthcare

In SEC v. Sripetch, No. 24-3830, 2025 WL 2525848 (9th Cir. Sept. 3, 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a $2.25 million disgorgement award obtained by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in an enforcement action, rejecting the argument that the SEC must prove pecuniary harm to investors before obtaining disgorgement under 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(5) and (d)(7). This decision deepens a split between Circuits that require a showing of pecuniary harm to investors in this context, and those that do not. As it stands now, the First, Fifth and Ninth Circuits have generally agreed that the SEC does not need to show individual investor harm impose disgorgement, whereas the Second Circuit holds the opposite. This split on a critical issue of SEC enforcement raises the specter of review by the United States Supreme Court.Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Clarifies SEC Disgorgement Standard, Aligning with the First and Fifth Circuits and Disagreeing with the Second Circuit

In Sneed v. Talphera, Inc., 2025 WL 2406424 (9th Cir. Aug. 20, 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a securities fraud suit against Talphera, Inc. (formerly AcelRx Pharmaceuticals; the “Company”) and two top executives, holding that a company slogan used in investor presentations — “Tongue and Done” — was not misleading to reasonable investors, especially in light of accompanying disclosures. This opinion clarifies the interplay between marketing materials, context and the reasonable investor standard for reliance and materiality in claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5.Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit: Marketing Slogan Alone Not Actionable Under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5

On September 3, 2025, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (Nasdaq) announced proposed changes to its listing standards. According to Nasdaq, these proposed changes respond to the rising complexity and volatility in today’s capital markets, especially in the context of emerging companies and cross-border listings.Continue Reading Nasdaq Proposes Significant Changes to Initial and Continued Listing Standards