Proxy votes have begun to come in at this point and we’ve got some early results on the reincorporation front. (Some earlier posts on this topic are available here, here, and here.)

Overall Status

I broke down and just created a chart for 2025 attempts to shift to Nevada. I had previously only been tracking attempts to move after SB21 in Delaware.

2025 Nevada Domicile Shifts
 FirmResultNotes
 1Fidelity National FinancialPass 
 2MSG SportsPass 
 3MSG EntertainmentPass 
 4Jade BiosciencesPassJade merged with Aerovate.
 5BAIYU HoldingsPassAction by Written Consent
 6RobloxPass 
 7Sphere EntertainmentPass 
 8AMC NetworksPass 
 9Universal Logistics Holdings, Inc.PassAction by Written Consent
 10Revelation BiosciencesFail97% of votes cast were for moving.  There “were 1,089,301 broker non-votes regarding this proposal”
 11Eightco HoldingsFailVotes were 608,460 in favor and 39,040 against with 763,342 broker non-votes.
 12DropBoxPassAction by Written Consent
 13Forward IndustriesPendingThis is New York to Nevada.
 14NuburuPending 
 15Xoma RoyaltyPass 
 16Tempus AIPass 
 17AffirmPending 

There is also some action going the other way with UPEXI attempting to move to Delaware.

Fidelity National Vote

One thing worth highlighting here is that Fidelity National succeeded on its second attempt to shift to Nevada. Previously in 2024, it secured 1110,277,692 votes in favor with 107,467,828 votes against. With about 27,000,000 broker non-votes, this wasn’t enough for the necessary majority. This year the votes were different with 147,059,505 votes cast in favor of the move and 74,874,567 votes cast against the move.

So what changed? As I covered in an earlier post, Fidelity National’s Nevada charter increased shareholder protections above the Nevada default threshold. This may have shifted some votes and makes it something to watch for future efforts.

Mercado Libre Update

One notable development, Mercado Libre pulled its proposal to shift from Delaware to Texas. I covered the proxy here. On June 9, Mercado Libre withdrew the proposal without explanation. The proxy had given a list of reasons why Mercado Libre wanted to shift its incorporation to Texas. It stated that the decision was the “result of deliberation and consideration, including discussions with management and outside legal counsel.”

So what changed? I’m assuming it’s some new factual development and not something that the earlier analysis and deliberation would have considered, but this is ultimately just speculation.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Benjamin P. Edwards Benjamin P. Edwards

Benjamin Edwards joined the faculty of the William S. Boyd School of Law in 2017. He researches and writes about business and securities law, corporate governance, arbitration, and consumer protection.

Prior to teaching, Professor Edwards practiced as a securities litigator in the New…

Benjamin Edwards joined the faculty of the William S. Boyd School of Law in 2017. He researches and writes about business and securities law, corporate governance, arbitration, and consumer protection.

Prior to teaching, Professor Edwards practiced as a securities litigator in the New York office of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. At Skadden, he represented clients in complex civil litigation, including securities class actions arising out of the Madoff Ponzi scheme and litigation arising out of the 2008 financial crisis. Read More