SEC Chairman Paul Atkins confirmed on July 9 that the Commission will not resume issuing no-action letters on shareholder proposal exclusions, and moved to gut Regulation S-K to bare materiality, telling the room of directors and general counsel: the buck stops with them.
Every board that leaned on an SEC no-action letter as its exclusion backstop no longer has one.
The posture is defensive containment: document the judgment before the 2027 proxy season opens.
PRIORITY 10 | SILO: REGULATORY
The SEC has confirmed it will not return to policing shareholder proposal exclusions or prescriptive disclosure line items. Boards now own that judgment, and the liability that comes with it.
The Signal
On July 9, at the Society for Corporate Governance’s 2026 National Conference in Nashville, SEC Chairman Paul Atkins confirmed the Commission has no plan to resume issuing no-action letters on Rule 14a-8 shareholder proposal exclusions, a practice the Division of Corporation Finance suspended in November 2025. He also detailed a materiality overlay for Regulation S-K, aimed at stripping disclosure line items that fall short of the Supreme Court’s TSC Industries materiality standard.
His framing left no ambiguity: companies and their boards, not the SEC, now own responsibility for the volume, clarity, and substance of what they file. As he put it to the room, “the buck stops with you.”
The Evidence
The no-action freeze is not new. The Division of Corporation Finance announced on November 17, 2025 that it would not respond to companies’ no-action requests during the 2025-2026 proxy season, apart from requests under Rule 14a-8(i)(1). It received zero such requests. Atkins reported that year-over-year proposal exclusion trends held steady anyway, citing Cooley’s June 2026 review and ISS-Corporate’s July 2026 season report, both finding 2026 outcomes closely tracked 2025.
The stakes are not hypothetical. Six lawsuits were filed against companies for excluding proposals this season, representing under four percent of the exclusion notices companies filed under Rule 14a-8(j). One suit was resolved in the company’s favor, three settled. Separately, data compiled by Proxy Analytics LLC shows a single individual served as sole or lead proponent on roughly 41 percent of Russell 3000 proposals voted between July 2025 and June 2026, of which only 8 percent won majority support.
On the disclosure side, the SEC opened Regulation S-K reform to public comment on January 13, 2026 and had logged more than 100 comment letters by July, including one from the Society for Corporate Governance itself urging a materiality overlay. Atkins named the risk of inaction directly: continuing to disclose immaterial information neither protects companies nor serves their shareholders.
The Strategic Implication
Defensive Risk. General counsel and corporate secretaries who built 2026 proxy season exclusion decisions assuming a staff no-action letter remained available, and audit or governance committee chairs still treating Regulation S-K’s line items as their disclosure checklist, are the ones exposed. What breaks is the professional judgment gap: the defense of “the SEC agreed” disappears when there is no letter to point to, and six 2026 exclusion suits already tested that exact gap under litigation. The window closes before the 2027 proxy season opens, when the Reg S-K materiality overlay could finalize and next season’s exclusion calls will be made under the same no-no-action regime. The responsible move is to direct general counsel and the governance committee now to draft and adopt a documented internal materiality and proposal exclusion framework, on the company’s own record, rather than reconstruct one after a challenge.
Offensive Advantage. The boards that write their own materiality and exclusion framework now move faster next season, without waiting on guidance that Atkins has confirmed will not come, and they hold a defensible record if a proponent sues, the same posture that kept exclusion litigation to just six suits against thousands of 2026 exclusion notices. This is the Governance Boundary Principle in its clearest form: a board’s disclosure standard was only ever as strong as the regulator backstopping it, and now that the SEC has stepped back, the only standard that holds is the one the board wrote and owns itself. The boards that internalize that now free the board and management time Atkins himself flagged as the real cost of the old system, and enter the 2027 season governing on their own authority instead of waiting for permission that is not coming.
Touch Stone Publishers
Board chairs and audit chairs: Take the Board Fiduciary AI Stress Test at touchstonepublishers.com/board-fiduciary-assessment