ExxonMobil is a Texas corporation in all but name, with most senior corporate executives and all corporate functions based in the state for the last 35 years. Our global headquarters are

Sorry, Ben, I’m jumping on this one.

Exxon is proposing to move its domicile to Texas.

It’s an obvious move for Exxon; their headquarters are there so they’re not exposing themselves to lawsuits in a different venue, and they also perhaps expect, shall we say, a friendlier judicial reception in Texas.

But Exxon isn’t a Delaware company. It’s a New Jersey one, old school from when it was Standard Oil and New Jersey dominated the market for corporate charters. Right now, they’re the subject of a couple of lawsuits in New Jersey over their retail shareholding program, and they’re fighting to transfer those to Texas.

But Exxon doesn’t have a controlling shareholder; its shareholders are normie institutions like BlackRock and State Street.

Perhaps to placate them over the move, it’s explicitly not going to opt in to the Texas provisions that would allow ownership thresholds on shareholder proposals and derivative lawsuits – provisions that did not exist when, say, Tesla asked them to vote on a move.

But, it’s also not committing in the charter not to adopt those provisions in a unilateral director-passed bylaw in the future (compare, for example, ArcBest, which promised in the charter…

I begin with illegality. Under Delaware law, contracts “purport[ing] to require a board to act or not act in such a fashion as to limit the exercise of fiduciary duties” are “invalid and unenforceable.” In the merger context, a board may not “disable[] itself from exercising its own fiduciary obligations at a time when the board’s own judgment is most important, i.e., receipt of a subsequent superior offer.” For example, “[d]irectors cannot be precluded by the terms of an overly restrictive ‘no-shop’ provision from all consideration of possible better transactions.”64 Boards are required to bargain for effective fiduciary out clauses permitting them to discharge their managerial authority in fidelity to stockholders. When managerial authority is preserved, the Court will

Following up on January’s post on this topic, we have some updates. This is the list I’ve compiled so far.

Announced Moves as of February 26

We’ve got an additional seven entries since the last update with some multi-billion dollar companies announcing for Texas now, including ArcBest which came out today.

To make this easier to understand, I’ve recruited a couple of Research Assistants to help with data visualizations, so many thanks to Ethan Viator and Hunter Hawkins for helping pull these together. You can see my full data here with some notes for follow up from our two brave research assistants. I’ve also added a column to track disclosed…

Back when the SEC announced it was functionally no longer going to weigh in on whether companies may legally exclude shareholder proposals, I made a prediction in a number of spaces – except embarrassingly, I can’t remember which ones. Possibly podcasts, webinars, conferences, I’m sure someone remembers.

Which was: Companies now are in a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose position. They can exclude proposals, regardless of their legal basis for doing so. They can be confident that the SEC – which is now hostile to proposals – will not sue to force their inclusion. Very few shareholders will have the resources to sue over an improperly excluded proposal, and if any shareholder bothers, the company can simply moot the action by voluntarily agreeing to include the proposal even before filing an answer to a complaint. There is no risk to the company in simply excluding proposals, and waiting to see who sues.

And – behold!

AT&T said it would exclude a proposal offered by a variety of NYC pension funds asking for the company to disclose its EEOC-1, i.e., a form AT&T is required to submit to the federal government regarding the racial and gender makeup of its workforce. AT&T claimed…

I read with interest this FBI Most Wanted notice concerning a certain Joshua Link, who is accused of, well:

Joshua Robert Link is wanted for his alleged involvement in a fraud scheme between January of 2021 and December of 2023. Through his company, Agridime LLC, Link and his co-conspirators solicited cattle contracts from buyers throughout the United States. They told prospective buyers that Agridime would purchase cattle, care for and feed the cattle, have it processed, and sell the meat through Agridime’s distribution channels. Agridime offered investment returns from 15% to 32% to prospective cattle contract buyers. In reality, Agridime purchased only a fraction of the cattle. The scheme resulted in an approximate loss of $115 million to over 2,000 cattle contract buyers nationwide. On January 29, 2026, a federal arrest warrant was issued for Link in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, after he was charged with Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud.

Upon further research, I discovered that the SEC had previously brought a civil action against him and his co-conspirators. As I understand the scheme, the fraudsters sold specific cattle to individual investors, promised to hold on to the cattle, raise, feed…

The Weinberg Center has launched a short, anonymous survey of law professors on normative views of the shareholder proposal system under Rule 14a-8. The survey may take about 10–12 minutes. A link to the survey is available here:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/YWPHSC2

 If you have any questions about the survey, you can reach out to Larry Cunningham.