Weekly Roundup: August 29-September 4, 2025

Summary

This roundup collects the Forum posts from 29 August to 4 September 2025. The pieces span antitrust concerns around overlapping directors, developments in the 2025 proxy season (including shareholder proposals and disclosure scrutiny), recent Delaware case law on directors’ investigative duties, ongoing litigation over California’s climate disclosure laws, and evolving practice among asset managers on fossil fuel exclusion screens and fiduciary pressure from state officials. There are also analytical posts on why large firms persist, how shareholder meetings are changing, and what drives board effectiveness in times of uncertainty.

Author style: Punchy — we’ve skimmed the week and pulled out what matters so you don’t need to slog through every post.

Key Points

Overlapping directors can raise competition concerns and potential collusion risks; the post examines interlocking boards and antitrust implications.
The 2025 proxy season saw notable shareholder proposal trends and SEC-related developments affecting ESG and governance proposals.
A Delaware Court dismissed claims against directors for failing to investigate past misconduct, clarifying pleading standards and directors’ duties in that context.
California’s climate-related disclosure laws remain the subject of active litigation, with significant implications for state-level disclosure regimes and plaintiffs’ strategies.
Public companies faced heightened disclosure scrutiny during the proxy season, touching executive compensation and other governance disclosures.
Shareholder meetings are evolving (virtual/hybrid formats, voting practices), with governance implications for AGM conduct and shareholder engagement.
Asset managers are wrestling with fossil fuel exclusion screens, SFDR considerations in the EU, and the practical effects on portfolios and compliance.
Research on firm persistence explores why big firms remain dominant, pointing to regulatory barriers, political connections and market dynamics.
Board effectiveness under uncertainty depends on composition, information flows and CEO-board interaction — practical takeaways for corporate directors.
California state officials have directly engaged asset managers via letters, signalling intensified oversight and fiduciary expectations at the state level.
Political pushback continues in some US states on ESG-related investing, illustrating persistent polarisation around climate and fiduciary duty debates.
Glass Lewis provided a global proxy season briefing highlighting shareholder rights and governance trends with a sustainability lens.

Why should I read this?

Quick hit: if you follow corporate governance, proxy season outcomes, ESG policy or boardroom law, this saves you time. It bundles the week’s legal and practical developments — from court rulings to state-level pressure on asset managers — so you can spot trends and decide what to read in full.