Sullivan
Microsoft has discontinued support for Internet Explorer. To access the Sullivan website, please install a modern browser like Microsoft Edge or Google Chrome.

The lawyers in our nationally recognized and ranked Corporate Governance & Board Advisory Group regularly advise boards of directors, including independent directors, board committees, and the executive leadership of for-profit and non-profit entities on all aspects of corporate governance and compliance, including board structure and quality decision-making, crisis and conflict management, regulatory oversight and compliance, government and internal investigations, and stakeholder and shareholder engagement issues.

Our broad and deep experience includes representation of public companies, private companies, non-profits and foundations, financial services firms, mutual funds, closed-end funds (including business development companies), real estate investment trusts and others. Our clients call upon our highly skilled and experienced team with their most sensitive matters and know that they can be assured of the utmost discretion. These engagements include on-going board advice and counseling; counseling on risk management, disclosure issues, and other compliance matters; guiding clients through complex and high risk decision-making; conflicts of interest and affiliated entity concerns, fact finding concerning potential violations of laws or regulations; addressing real or perceived conflicts of interests; responding to shareholder demands; and managing client responses to investigations and enforcement actions by governmental authorities and related private litigation. We regularly serve as the interface between our board clients and third-party advisers who also provide input on such matters.

We also routinely advise on the following matters:

  • On-going business matters and decision-making procedures
  • Duties of the independent board chair and directors
  • Board and committee structure, composition, and charters
  • Director compensation
  • Senior executive and director succession planning
  • Board and board committee self-assessment processes
  • Special board committee investigations and reports
  • Government and internal investigations
  • Enterprise risk assessments and risk management
  • Conflict of interest and related party transactions
  • Development and implementation of policies and procedures
  • Tone at the top issues and concerns
  • Director election and other proxy contests
  • Creation and maintenance of adequate and appropriate documentation
  • Benchmarking of board practices
  • Shareholder communications

We counsel clients to avoid pitfalls and strategically resolve issues that arise with practical, straight-forward advice and support.

Viewpoints
All Viewpoints
Sullivan & Worcester Submits Rebuttal Comment Letter to SEC on Nasdaq’s Proposed Market Value Listing Requirement
On June 3, 2026, Sullivan & Worcester submitted a rebuttal comment letter to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in response to comment letters supporting Nasdaq’s proposed continued listing requirement mandating that companies maintain a minimum Market Value of Listed Securities of $5 million. The letter was authored by partners David Danovitch, Angela Gomes, and Brendan O’Brien, and associate Phillip Carnevale. Building on the firm’s prior submissions, Sullivan argued that the comment letters that were in support of the Nasdaq proposal failed to provide empirical evidence linking the proposed $5 million threshold to fraud, manipulation or enhanced investor protection. Sullivan's letter also buttressed its earlier letters by highlighting additional market data demonstrating that many companies that temporarily fell below the proposed threshold subsequently recovered above a $5 million market capitalization threshold, resulting in the creation of significant shareholder value. For these reasons, Sullivan urged the SEC to disapprove the proposal. Through its interdisciplinary Small-Firm Task Force, Sullivan continues to advocate for practical, evidence-based regulatory approaches affecting small-cap, micro-cap and mid-market public companies and their investors.  To stay informed on developments affecting small-cap and micro-cap market participants, visit Sullivan’s Small-Firm Task Force resource center, which provides ongoing insights, commentary and updates on the evolving regulatory landscape.
SEC Proposes Significant Changes to Public Company Reporting Rules, Including New Filer Categories and Expanded Disclosure Relief
On May 19, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission proposed amendments to public company reporting under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that would significantly reshape how public companies are classified and regulated. The proposal would replace the existing multi-tier filer structure with two primary categories: (i) large accelerated filers and (ii) non-accelerated filers, the latter of which would include a new subcategory of small non-accelerated filers. These proposals effectively remove the accelerated filer and smaller reporting company classifications and extend many current disclosure and compliance accommodations to an expanded group of non-accelerated filers. If adopted, these amendments would mark a substantial modernization of the SEC’s filer status framework. The changes are intended to streamline reporting obligations, lower compliance expenses and ease regulatory burdens for most public companies, while maintaining more intensive disclosure standards for large accelerated filers. Simplified Filer Status Categories Currently, there are five unique SEC filer statuses: (i) large accelerated filer, (ii) accelerated filer, (iii) non-accelerated filer, (iv) smaller reporting company and (v) emerging growth company. As constructed, some of these statuses often overlap with one another based on the make-up of a company. The proposed changes would simplify the SEC’s filer classification system by reducing it to two main categories: large accelerated filers and non-accelerated filers, while continuing to recognize emerging growth companies as a separate statutory designation. Consequently, under the proposed framework, the accelerated filer and smaller reporting company classifications would be removed. Large Accelerated Filers and Non-Accelerated Filers The proposal would increase the public float (i.e., equity held by non-affiliates) threshold for large accelerated filer status from $700 million to $2 billion and the public float calculation would be determined using the company’s average stock price during the final 10 trading days of its second fiscal quarter, instead of the current test using the float on the last business day of the second fiscal quarter. The proposed 10-day average is intended to prevent filer status from being based on a one-day price movement on the testing date. To qualify as a large accelerated filer, a company would need to satisfy the threshold for two consecutive years and remain subject to the Exchange Act reporting requirements for at least 60 continuous calendar months (five years). Under current requirements, a company need only have been subject to such reporting requirements for at least 12 months and a filer’s status can fluctuate from year to year if its public float hovers above and below the current $700 million threshold. Extending the seasoning period of newly public companies from the current 12 months to 60 consecutive calendar months is intended to create an “on-ramp” for newly public companies to allow them to stabilize and grow while being subject to more limited disclosure requirements and other reporting accommodations for this extended period. This would provide companies with more time to become accustomed to public company reporting and reduce compliance burdens in the early years of being public. Similarly, raising the public float threshold to capture only the largest of public companies and requiring that the $2 billion public float requirement be met for two consecutive years would significantly decrease the number of companies that would be subject to large accelerated filer status (thereby increasing the number of companies subject to the more scaled requirements of non-accelerated filers) and increase predictability of which reporting requirements would apply to a company. If the proposal is adopted by the SEC, we anticipate that these proposed changes would be welcomed both from the public company and investment communities, as there would be more consistency as to the disclosure requirements imposed on companies. The filing deadlines for periodic reports under the Exchange Act for large accelerated filers would remain 60 days from fiscal year end for annual reports on Form 10-K and 40 days from quarter ends for quarterly reports on Form 10-Q. Under the proposal, any company that does not qualify as a large accelerated filer, as described above, would be classified as a non-accelerated filer. As a result, all companies would be treated as such from the time of their initial public offering or SEC registration and continuing for at least five years thereafter due to the proposed seasoning requirement described above. Companies classified as non-accelerated filers will enjoy the more limited disclosure requirements currently available to smaller reporting companies and emerging growth companies (as described below). Filing deadlines for non-accelerated filers would remain unchanged at 90 days from fiscal year end for annual reports on Form 10-K and 45 days from quarter ends for quarterly reports on Form 10-Q. However, as noted above, more companies will qualify for these deadlines as opposed to how the system is currently constructed by virtue of proposed elimination of accelerated filer status, which currently requires annual reports on Form 10-K to be filed 75 days after the filer’s fiscal year end for companies that are accelerated filers but not large accelerated filers. Small Non-Accelerated Filers Beyond the consolidation of the filer statuses noted above, the proposal would also establish a new subcategory of non-accelerated filers for the smallest reporting companies. A company would qualify as a small non-accelerated filer if it meets the definition of a non-accelerated filer and has reported total assets of $35 million or less at the end of its two most recent second fiscal quarters. Companies that qualify as small non-accelerated filers would benefit from extended filing deadlines, allowing up to 120 days after fiscal year-end to file Form 10-Ks (rather than the current 90-day deadline for non-accelerated filers) and up to 50 days after fiscal quarter-end to file Form 10-Qs (rather than 45 days). The additional time to complete these periodic filings would provide substantial reporting relief to the smallest public companies, which often have limited accounting and financial reporting personnel resources and for whom compliance costs can constitute a significant portion of their overall costs. It is important to note that the SEC has not proposed changes to the existing filing deadlines for Form 8-Ks, thus small non-accelerated filers would still be expected to keep the market updated as promptly as current regulations require. Non-Accelerated Filer Enhanced Accommodations Under the proposal, all non-accelerated filers would become eligible for substantially the same scaled disclosure accommodations currently available only to smaller reporting companies and emerging growth companies, subject to limited exceptions applicable to asset-backed issuers, most foreign private issuers and certain investment-company-related issuers. These accommodations would include: reduced executive compensation disclosure obligations, including exemption from pay-versus-performance disclosure requirements; exemption from certain requirements to hold shareholder advisory votes to approve executive compensation (“say-on-pay”), frequency of say-on-pay voting, and “golden parachute” compensation; the ability to provide only two years of audited financial statements, rather than three years; and relief from the auditor attestation requirement for internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Initial Transition Framework Under the proposed rules, companies that are already public when the final rules become effective would be required to determine whether they qualify as large accelerated filers or non-accelerated filers, and small non-accelerated filers within that classification, based on their status as of the end of the fiscal year preceding the rules’ effective date. This determination would rely on the company’s public float and, where relevant, total assets for both that fiscal year and the immediately preceding fiscal year. Existing public companies could perform this initial status determination at any point after the final rules become effective, provided that the assessment is completed no later than the day before the final day of the fiscal year in which the rules take effect. If a company fails to complete the assessment within that period, default treatment would apply until the next assessment date. Specifically, a company that was previously classified as a large accelerated filer would continue to be treated as such, while all other companies would be treated as non-accelerated filers not considered small non-accelerated filers. Once a company completes the initial assessment and qualifies as a non-accelerated filer, the company may immediately begin relying on the accommodations available in its next Securities Act or Exchange Act filing. Similarly, a company that qualifies as a small non-accelerated filer could begin using the extended filing deadlines for its next Form 10-Q or Form 10-K filed after completion of the assessment. Foreign Private Issuers The proposal would not apply the new large accelerated filer and non-accelerated filer classifications to certain categories of issuers. In particular, foreign private issuers (FPIs) that choose to report using the FPI-specific forms and regulatory framework would remain outside the scope of the new filer-status regime. As a result, FPIs that file annual reports on Form 20-F would continue to be subject to the existing internal control over financial reporting auditor attestation requirement under Section 404(b), if they maintain a public float of at least $75 million as of the end of their most recently completed second fiscal quarter, unless they otherwise qualify as emerging growth companies, and the public float calculation for filer status would be based on the last day of the most recently completed second fiscal quarter. The SEC has indicated that it is preserving the current approach for FPIs while it continues its broader evaluation of the FPI reporting framework which was announced in June 2025. * * * * * * * * If you would like further information regarding the proposed amendments to filer status and reporting requirements under the Exchange Act, or any other rule changes or guidance described above, please contact the lawyer at Sullivan & Worcester LLP with whom you regularly consult, or any of the lawyers listed above.
Top Tier Firm, Legal 500 United States 2026
Sullivan & Worcester Ranked in the Legal 500 United States 2026 Edition
Boston, MA – Sullivan & Worcester announced that its practice groups and attorneys have been ranked and recommended in the Legal 500 United States 2026. The firm’s Real Estate practice was newly ranked Tier 1 in the “Real estate – mid-market ($0-500m)” category and the firm maintained rankings across a variety of practice areas. Partners Nicole Crum and John Steiner were newly ranked as Leading Partners and Ryan Rosenblatt as a Next Generation Partner. Peers and more than 300,000 corporate counsel were surveyed and interviewed globally in the past 12 months to assess law firms’ overall visibility and reputation, culminating in detailed rankings and editorial. The Legal 500 is an independent guide, and firms and individuals are recommended purely on merit. Sullivan's lawyers received the following rankings: Leading Partners: The Legal 500’s Guide to Outstanding Lawyers Nationwide Benjamin Armour - M&A: Middle-Market (Sub-$500m); M&A: middle-market ($0-250m) Ameek Ashok Ponda - Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs)  Nicole Crum - Mutual/registered/exchange-traded funds Lewis Segall - M&A: Middle-Market (Sub-$500m); M&A: middle-market ($0-250m) John Steiner - Real estate – mid-market ($0-500m) Douglas Stransky - International Tax Joel Telpner - Fintech Next Generation Partners: The Legal 500’s Guide to Up-and-Coming Lawyers Nationwide Ryan Rosenblatt - General commercial disputes – mid-market ($250-500m) Sarah Wellings - Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) Practice Areas Ranked and Attorneys Recognized Corporate Governance “Our lead partner, Nicole Crum, who leads the investment industry practice, is exceptional. She demonstrates strong industry knowledge yet is very personable and anticipates what we need to know or what we should consider doing to handle any matter. The team roll up their sleeves and provide recommendations as to how we as a board should handle any matter. Strong service commitment and work ethic!” “The team we have at Sullivan & Worcester has served our company for years and knows the management team, staff as well as our board members. They are extremely responsive and proactive and anticipate what we should be aware of, concerned about, excited about, and how to handle oversight, processes and protocols to ensure we are carrying out our fiduciary duties. The partners are experts in this industry.” Leading Partner: Nicole Crum Recommended Lawyers: Howard Berkenblit, David Leahy Dispute Resolution/General Commercial Disputes “Diverse skillset. Client centric. Transparency. Urgency provided on all matters.” “I have worked with Gerry Silver for over 15 years and have found his pragmatic approach to complex matters refreshing. He understands our business, culture and market, and will give me his opinion in a digestible manner.” Next Generation Partner: Ryan Rosenblatt Recommended Lawyers: Gerry Silver, Patrick Dinardo, Laura Steinberg, Michael Sullivan, Amy Zuccarello, Erika Todd, Christopher Shields, Anna Lea McNerney Employee Benefits, Executive Compensation and Retirement Plans: Design “The level of expertise is top shelf. David Guadagnoli seems to know all of ERISA and IRS rulings.” “David Guadagnoli and Amy Sheridan both have superior knowledge in their respective areas. I value the ability to raise issues whether simple or complex. The firm takes the same diligent approach across all spectrums of complexity.” Recommended Lawyers: David Guadagnoli, Amy Sheridan Environment: Transactional Fintech “Sullivan & Worcester is one of the finest firms with which I have worked.” “The lawyers are excellent, and the firm consistently provides the highest quality of customer service.” Leading Partner: Joel Telpner Recommended Lawyers: Natalie Lederman, Benjamin Armour, Scott Kaufman, Harvey Bines, Christopher Curtis Land Use/Zoning Recommended Lawyers: Gregory Sampson, Ashley Brooks, Victor Baltera, Karen Kepler, Ashley Tan M&A: Corporate and Commercial: Venture Capital and Emerging Companies Recommended Lawyers: Scott Kaufman, Lewis Segall, Benjamin Armour, Michael Student M&A: Middle-Market ($0-250m) “The partner Lewis Segall has been working with our company for 15 years and we have a good working relationship with him. He knows our history and very attentive to our needs.” “Lewis Segall is very attentive to our needs. We very much value him.” Leading Partners: Benjamin Armour, Lewis Segall Recommended Lawyers: Natalie Lederman Mutual/Registered/Exchange-Traded Funds “Sullivan & Worcester's practice is defined by its deep expertise in investment funds and its ability to deliver clear, commercially grounded advice across the full fund lifecycle—from formation and structuring to regulatory compliance and complex transactions.” “The team is highly experienced, collaborative, and excel in efficient execution and clear communication.” Leading Partner: Nicole Crum Recommended Lawyers: David Leahy, David Mahaffey, Rachael Schwartz Real Estate Leading Partner: John Steiner Recommended Lawyers: Ashley Brooks, Karen Kepler, Gregory Sampson, Sharon Leifer, Louis Monti, Spencer Stone, Ashley Tan Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) “We have built multiple complex and sophisticated REIT platforms over the years and worked with many top-tier REIT specialists, but Sullivan’s REIT practice is by far the best, with Sarah Wellings.” Leading Partner: Ameek Ashok Ponda Next Generation Partner: Sarah Wellings Recommended Lawyers: Angela Gomes, Louis Monti, Shu Wei, Cameron Cosby International Tax “The international collaboration with S&W is exceptional.” “What really stands out is their willingness to engage, openness to different ideas and opinions, clearly expressed expectations, and clients' objectives.” Leading Partner: Douglas Stransky Recommended Lawyers: Lewis Greenwald, Eric Rietveld Tax > US Taxes: Contentious Recommended Lawyers: Richard Jones, David Nagle, Daniel Ryan, Caroline Kupiec Tax > US Taxes: Non-Contentious “Sarah Wellings is, quite simply, the best lawyer we have ever worked with. Her expertise extends far beyond tax and REIT matters, encompassing governance, financing, and complex commercial issues. Decades of experience and technical mastery make her an indispensable partner. Sarah is our central point of contact who makes everything seamless. Her in-house counsel background gives her a unique client perspective: she anticipates needs, solves problems before they arise, and delivers concise, well-structured updates that simplify even the most intricate issues. She coordinates effortlessly with all parties involved. Her judgment is exceptional. Sarah strikes the perfect balance between comprehensive academic rigor and practical, business-oriented advice. She combines technical REIT/tax excellence with commercial instincts, ensuring every recommendation is both legally sound and strategically smart. Her ability to translate complex law into clear, actionable guidance is unmatched. Sarah is incredibly responsive without ever sacrificing quality. She treats our matters as her own, demonstrating a rare ownership mindset and collaborative spirit. Her integrity is uncompromising, giving us absolute confidence in her counsel. In short, Sarah Wellings defines legal excellence: reliable, commercially minded, and client-focused. Working with her feels like being in the safest possible hands; she consistently exceeds expectations and orchestrates complex transactions with clarity and precision.” Recommended Lawyers: Ameek Ashok Ponda, Richard Jones, Douglas Stransky, Sarah Wellings About Sullivan Sullivan & Worcester (Sullivan) is a premier international law firm with lawyers in Boston, London, New York, Tel Aviv and Washington, D.C. Sullivan’s clients, including Fortune 500 companies, leading financial services firms and asset managers, boards of directors, real estate companies, and emerging businesses, rely on Sullivan’s ability to navigate complex legal and operational landscapes, the impeccable judgment of its lawyers, and its commitment to best-in-class client service.
Regulators Poised to Lighten Disclosure Requirements for $26 Trillion Private Fund Industry
John Hunt was quoted in the article "Regulators Poised to Lighten Disclosure Requirements for $26 Trillion Private Fund Industry" published by the National Law Journal [sub. req'd] on April 24, 2026.  The article discusses a proposed rule by the SEC and CFTC to significantly raise reporting thresholds for private fund advisers, reducing disclosure requirements for many firms while aiming to ease compliance burdens. It also highlights concerns from critics who argue that scaling back oversight could increase systemic risk and reduce transparency in the large and growing private funds industry. John said that existing reporting requirements include many smaller funds that do not present a systemic risk to the economy. “This is a return to kind of where the Form PF was originally intended to go,” he said.  

Corporate Governance & Board Advisory

Corporate Governance & Board Advisory

Corporate Governance & Board Advisory

Corporate Governance & Board Advisory