Photo of Benjamin P. Edwards

Benjamin Edwards currently serves as the Associate Dean for Faculty Research and Development at the William S. Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.   He also has a role as Senior Of Counsel with Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati. He researches and writes about business and securities law, corporate governance, arbitration, professional responsibility, and consumer protection, and writes here in his personal and academic capacity.

 

Following up on the last post in this series, we now have data from January through August 2026. Special thanks to three student research assistants, Boyd Law students Rocco Marino and Enya Dinca, and UNLV Honors College undergraduate student Micaela Benavidez-Sosa, for all the work they did to pull together this information. A copy of the spreadsheet used to produce this report is available here.

I’ve leaned on Claude to create infographics to help summarize the information. Any errors or omissions in this are mine alone.

Deal Flow by Month

We’re still seeing a significant number of offerings going to market. SpaceX still stands apart, but SK Hynix’s IPO also raised a huge sum. We’re also seeing more direct listings than I would have anticipated.

SPACs, Operating Company IPOs, and Direct Listings

SPAC IPOs continue to account for over half of the dataset.

Jurisdictional Choices by Capital Raised and Deal Count

Texas leads as the jurisdiction raising the most capital, driven largely by SpaceX.

When you pull SPACs out, the data shows the Cayman Islands dropping away.

If we look at deal count instead of capital raised, the Cayman Islands reign supreme because there are so many

Although there has been substantial discussion on differences in state corporate law driving incorporation choices, not as much attention has been paid to cost differentiation between the states. As many know, Delaware charges smaller public companies organized as corporations up to $200,000 annually. Large filers pay Delaware a flat $250,000 annually. But not every company will benefit from Delaware’s premium subscription plan.

Carliss Chatman and I wrote a response to Professor Bainbridge’s thoughtful DExit Drivers piece that was published in the Journal of Corporation Law. Our response, entitled DExit for Dollars, explores a complementary angle on the Delaware franchise tax and how it may be more material than previously appreciated for some smaller companies. Instead of focusing on the companies that have left Delaware to see what drove them—or at least what they put in the proxy, we consider the annual financial costs paid by companies that opt to remain. I also covered some of the cost considerations in a recent podcast with the Council of Institutional Investors.

One of our main contributions is to suggest that companies should look at becoming subject to Delaware’s annual franchise tax or escaping Delaware’s annual franchise tax as something akin to a

We’ve had some additional movement on the reincorporation front since the July update and we’ve also identified some smaller moves that hadn’t been captured in the earlier reviews. In July we’d identified 43 attempted moves for 2026, that number now sits at 59. As always, the underlying spreadsheet with links to filings is here. Given the current length, I’ve moved the full list to the bottom of the post this time.

I’ve also had Claude generate infographics again to help make trends easier to see. There is some variability in the outputs on these infographics between updates. My only instructions beyond asking for graphics that highlight particular things are to keep Texas Red, Delaware Blue (Go Blue Hens!) and Nevada Silver (the Silver State) so I can understand these at a glance.

Overall Movement Flow

One of the neat things about aiming to capture all the moves is you can see flows going both ways and think about what may be driving some of the movement.

I’m curious about some of these moves. For example, TopPoint Holdings now seeks to shift from Nevada to Delaware. The company has a market cap of about $3.3 million today. Its

Registration is now open for the fall 2026 Law and Finance Workshop series. Please use this form to register. All workshops take place on Fridays from 1pm to 2pm ET via Zoom. Registered participants will receive the draft paper and zoom link one week before each workshop. 

Law & Finance Workshop Schedule 2026-27 

Fall 2026 

Friday, August 28: Jeffrey Zhang (Michigan) & Dan Awrey (Cornell) presenting Money Cop.

– Kate Judge (Columbia) discussing.

Friday, September 18: David Zaring (Wharton) presenting Financial Regulation’s New Paradigm

– Howell Jackson (Harvard) discussing.

Friday, October 9: Yuliya Guseva (Florida State), Irena Hutton (Florida State), Adam Pritchard (Michigan), & Joseph Grundfest (Stanford) presenting Judicial Review of SEC Rulemaking.

– Amanda Rose (Vanderbilt) discussing.

Friday, October 30: Andrew Tuch (WashU) presenting Conflict and Collapse: Goldman Sachs, Silicon Valley Bank, and the Myth of Information Barriers.

– Afra Afsharipour (UC Davis) discussing.

Friday, November 13: Elizabeth King (Boston University) presenting Debt’s Hidden Hand.

– George Georgiev (Miami) discussing.

Spring 2027 (discussants TBA)

Friday, January 22: Morgan Ricks (Vanderbilt) & Lev Menand (Columbia) presenting The Berle Curve.

Friday, February 19: Isabelle Zhang (Virginia) presenting Legalism Without Information:

What’s Working in Your Classroom? Experiential Exercises in Business Law

The AALS Section on Transactional Law & Skills is pleased to announce a session at the 2027 AALS Annual Meeting in New York City.

The Section invites submissions for a panel highlighting experiential exercises across the business law curriculum. We welcome exercises used in courses including Business Associations, Contracts, Securities Regulation, Tax, Intellectual Property, Commercial Law, Transactional Drafting, and other business law courses. Examples might include contract drafting workshops, transactional research assignments, mock negotiations, client counseling exercises, compliance exercises, deal simulations, or other experiential activities that develop students’ transactional lawyering and professional skills.

Selected presenters will describe their exercise, discuss how they facilitate and, where applicable, assess or grade it, and give attendees a sense of how it plays out in the classroom.

We anticipate selecting multiple presenters for this session, with the final number depending on the session length and the submissions received. A formal written paper is not required; a clear description of the exercise and how it is used is sufficient for submission.

To submit, please send a short description of your exercise to Professor David Lourie (dlourie@iu.edu) on or before Friday, September 11, 2026. Please include

People have different views about S.B. 21 and whether it was a good thing or a bad thing for Delaware, for corporate law, or just generally. As Ann pointed out, views split over litigation within Delaware. It might be that “more rigorous procedures – and the litigation that enforces them” generates real value for shareholders. It’s also possible that much “shareholder litigation is a mere nuisance that has little substantive effect on corporate behavior.”

Who has the better side of the argument? What voices should Delaware listen to as it makes decisions? In an essay forthcoming in the Yale Law Journal Forum, I looked at the aftermath of S.B. 21 through the lens of Hirschman’s Exit, Voice, and Loyalty. Here, Nevada and Texas now provide the dominant exit options for Delaware entities. The existence of possible exit options may make it easier for stakeholders with concerns to have their voices heard and protect against a risk that Delaware will drift to a kind of bottom with excessive litigation–instead of racing to a top or a bottom. To map the voices contending within Delaware, I looked at the donation pattern for lawyers giving funds to Democratic incumbent state

The University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law (McGeorge), invites applications for
the following four positions:
 A doctrinal, tenure track or tenured lateral faculty position for a candidate whose
teaching package will include Constitutional Law;
 A doctrinal, tenure track position for a candidate whose teaching package will
include Property;
 A position as Director of our Trial Advocacy program, ranked 16th in the country by
US News, which may be tenured/tenure-track or on an indefinite contract/indefinite
contract track, commensurate with a candidate’s experience and preferences; and
 An indefinite contract or indefinite contract track position teaching legal writing and
other skills as part of our distinctive Global Lawyering Skills program.
Each of the four positions involves or can lead to security of position, sabbatical
opportunities, research support, voting rights, and faculty governance responsibilities.
We seek applications from exceptional candidates with a passion for teaching and
scholarship, and who are excited about being part of an exceptionally collegial, student-
focused, committed faculty and a strong and vibrant university.
Qualified lateral candidates for the Constitutional Law position may be considered for the
Anthony M. Kennedy Endowed Faculty Chair, a fully funded chair that includes a significant
stipend, double travel

With the discussion over reincorporating companies continuing, the other place to watch to observe jurisdictional trends is the IPO market. I recently covered Delaware’s recent report that it pulled in “nearly 70%” of IPOs last year. But what does 2026 look like so far?

Answering that question requires gathering a lot of information. But we now have some spreadsheets thanks to some student help. I’m enormously grateful to two student research assistants, Boyd Law student Rocco Marino and UNLV Honors College undergraduate student Micaela Benavidez-Sosa, for all the work they did to pull together this information. This remains a work in progress and we’re continuing to refine the spreadsheets. If you see ways to make them more useful, please email me and I’ll take a look.

We aimed to gather information about all of the IPOs or direct listings occurring in the first half of 2026. A full copy of our spreadsheet is available here. I used Claude to create the infographics. Any errors in this analysis are mine alone.

Return of the SPAC

First, some insights. SPACS are back! This has been reported elsewhere, but many of the IPOs we tracked were SPACs. Overwhelmingly, these

When considering differences between jurisdictions, it can be hard to appreciate when these differences will matter.  To help showcase contrasts between jurisdictions, I’ve decided to launch a comparative series taking decisions from one jurisdiction and considering whether a court would come out differently when applying another state’s law. 

As Delaware has the most public companies and its courts issue the most widely discussed decisions, I’m launching this series with a recent Chancery decision, Fishel v. Liberty Media

Notably, this transaction occurred and the litigation was filed before Delaware passed SB21. If the same facts were to recur in Delaware today, the outcome might differ.

Structure – Review Panel

To make this interesting and provide independent views on how the case might come out under Nevada or Texas law, I’ve given the decision to different practicing lawyers and law professors.  I’ve asked them to independently review the decision and give a brief explanation for how they think the decision would come out under their state’s law. 

To make the lift easy, I also provided them with an early draft of this post and my quick factual summary of the decision.  This also saves time as they don’t need to introduce

We now have another five since the last update. One smaller company came to Nevada from Australia–Nova Minerals. Then four different Texas firms coordinated their defections from Delaware. All announced at the same time: Energy Transfer LP, Sunoco LP, SunocoCorp LLC, and USA Compression Partners. Collectively, these firms moved $89 billion in equity from Delaware to Texas. Notably, none of these four firms are organized as corporations.

Company NamePrincipal Executive OfficeOrigination StateDestination State
1. TruGolfUtahDelawareNevada
2. Forian, Inc.PennsylvaniaDelawareMaryland
3. LQR HouseFloridaNevadaDelaware
4. CBAK EnergyChinaNevadaCayman Islands
5. Cheetah NetChinaNorth CarolinaDelaware
6. GalectoMassachusettsDelawareCayman Islands
7. Resolute Holdings Management, Inc.New YorkDelawareNevada
8. Forward Industries, INCTexasNew YorkTexas
9. EQV Ventures AcquisitionUtahCayman IslandsDelaware
10. Datadog, Inc.New YorkDelawareNevada
11. Haymaker Acquisition Corp 4OklahomaCayman IslandsDelaware
12. CDT EquityFloridaDelawareCayman Islands
13. eXp World HoldingsTexasDelawareTexas
14. ArcBest CorpArkansasDelawareTexas
15. Texas Capital BancsharesTexasDelawareTexas
16. ExxonMobil Corp.TexasNew JerseyTexas
17. NL IndustriesTexasNew JerseyDelaware
18. ClearOne Inc