We are writing today to inform you that Glass Lewis has made the difficult decision to initiate legal action against the Attorney General of Texas. In this letter, we explain the reasons why we are pursuing this legal path to protect our business and, by extension, our clients and the proxy voting industry, as a whole.

Over the last several months, Glass Lewis and other proxy advisors have been targeted by a variety of political detractors and corporate executives critical of our business model and the role we play in supporting institutional shareholders in carrying out their proxy voting responsibilities.

In fact, three states attorneys general have opened inquiries into supposed consumer fraud

I speak of Epicentrx, Inc. v. Superior Court, a case that I previously blogged about here.

Delaware entity, doing business in California.  A minority investor sues in California, alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract.  Defendant corporation and controlling stockholder move to dismiss, on the grounds of a Delaware Chancery forum selection clause in both the charter and the bylaws.  Investor argues that California’s constitution confers a jury right that – per California precedent – cannot be contractually waived pre-dispute.  Therefore, investor claims, a forum selection clause that functionally results in a jury waiver (because the Court of Chancery sits without a jury) must also be invalid.  Investor also argues that the charter and bylaws are not binding because the internal affairs doctrine has no application here (fraud claims, for example, are not governed by the internal affairs doctrine), and the forum selection clauses were not freely adopted.

Since this is a topic I’ve written about (and written about and written about), the case had my attention.  In my previous post, I wrote, “one factor that makes constitutive documents noncontractual is that, as Boilermakers Local 154 Retirement Fund v. Chevron Corp., 73 A.3d…

Does everyone remember the summer of 2024, when the hot corporate topic was SB 313 and Delaware’s move to authorize shareholder agreements?  Much less discussed at the time, but still important, was the proposal to permit jilted merger targets to collect lost premium damages.  Delaware amended its corporation law to provide:

Any agreement of merger or consolidation governed by § 251 of this title… may provide: (1) That (i) a party to the agreement that fails to perform its obligations under such agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions of such agreement, … shall be subject, in addition to any other remedies available at law or in equity, to such penalties or consequences as are set forth in the agreement of merger or consolidation (which penalties or consequences may include an obligation to pay to the other party or parties to such agreement an amount representing, or based on the loss of, any premium or other economic entitlement the stockholders of such other party would be entitled to receive pursuant to the terms of such agreement if the merger or consolidation were consummated in accordance with the terms of such agreement)…

In other words, DGCL 261 overrides the…

Nevada’s trial-level business courts are not as heavily observed as the Delaware Court of Chancery. Our in-state ecosystem does lacks anything quite like The Chancery Daily. But we do have Our Nevada Judges which has a broader focus.

With that in mind, I wanted to highlight a very recent Nevada Business Court decision from Judge Gall that considers whether the business judgment rule applies in the limited liability company context.

Nevada limited liability companies are governed by Chapter 86 of the Nevada Revised Statutes. Unlike Chapter 78, which governs corporations, there is no statutory business judgment rule. So what does this mean for limited liability companies? Should their management get business judgment rule protection?

Judge Gall faced a dispute where one party argued that the corporation statute’s business judgment rule and exculpation provisions should apply and the other party argued that because the operating agreement did not specifically set out a business judgment rule, that there should be no business judgment rule.

The Court found that “by adopting fiduciary duties . . . the members incorporated the business judgment rule to assess whether they breached those duties.” After reviewing some literature on the subject, the Court reasoned that when…

The 2026 National Business Law Scholars Conference (NBLSC) will be in Las Vegas, at the William S. Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas on May 26 and 27, 2026. This will be the 17th meeting of the NBLSC, an annual conference that draws legal scholars from across the United States and around the world.

For attendees traveling from the east coast, the 2026 Law and Society Conference will be in San Francisco from May 28-31. The timing may make it possible for attendees to go directly from NBLSC in Las Vegas to Law and Society in San Francisco without needing to fly back east. The May date also allows us to host the event in Vegas before the summer grows uncomfortably hot.