
Howard D. Bader
Partner
212-784-6926 hbader@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Howard D. Bader
Date: December 16, 2020

Partner
212-784-6926 hbader@sh-law.com
The diversity of a company’s board of directors continues to face increased scrutiny, with Nasdaq, Inc. proposing a new rule that would require companies listed on its exchange to have at least one woman and one underrepresented minority. The board diversity requirements must still be approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
Diversity is becoming a more frequent topic of discussion when it comes to selecting board members, with shareholders calling on boards to include more women and racial minorities. While federal regulators have not yet established requirements regarding board diversity, states are beginning to take action. In California, boards must have at least one female member. Starting on January 1, 2021, companies based in Illinois must disclose the race and genders of their directors.
While significant strides have been made to increase board diversity in recent years, progress has been slow and significant disparity still exists. According to a Harvard Law School study, 66 percent of board members at Fortune 500 companies were white men in 2018. Another 17.9 percent were white women, followed by 11.5 percent men of color and 4.6 percent women of color. When it comes to executive leadership, as of May 2019, 6.6% percent of Fortune 500 CEOs are women, and there are similarly low numbers of people of color leading those companies.
Many companies have voluntarily established policies seeking to increase diversity and/or disclose their board makeup. According to studies, these efforts often pay off, with increased diversity shown to boost a company’s performance. For instance, a Mckinsey & Co study found that ethnically diverse companies are 35 percent more likely to have financial returns above national industry medians and gender diverse companies are 15 percent more likely to do the same.
If approved by the SEC, Nasdaq’s new listing rules would require all companies listed on Nasdaq’s U.S. exchange to publicly disclose consistent, transparent diversity statistics regarding their board of directors. Additionally, the rules would require most Nasdaq-listed companies to have, or explain why they do not have, at least two diverse directors, including one who self-identifies as female and one who self-identifies as either an underrepresented minority or LGBTQ+. Foreign companies and smaller reporting companies would have additional flexibility in satisfying this requirement with two female directors. Under the proposed listing rules, an “underrepresented minority” is defined as an individual who self-identifies in one or more of the following groups: Black or African American, Hispanic or Latinx, Asian, Native American or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander or two or more races or ethnicities.
According to Nasdaq, the changes are intended to provide stakeholders with a better understanding of the company’s current board composition and enhance investor confidence that all listed companies are considering diversity in the context of selecting directors. “Diversity of experience, gender, race, knowledge, and perspective means that a company is more capable of seeing the full picture, assessing risk and overcoming challenges with forward-looking, innovative solutions,” Michael Splinter, Chairman of Nasdaq, said in a press statement.
The rule proposal would specifically require Nasdaq-listed companies to publicly disclose board-level diversity statistics through Nasdaq’s proposed disclosure framework within one year of the SEC’s approval of the listing rule. The deadline for meeting the minimum board composition expectations would be determined by the company’s listing tier. All companies would be expected to have one diverse director within two years of the SEC’s approval of the listing rule. Companies listed on the Nasdaq Global Select Market and Nasdaq Global Market would have an additional two year (four total) to comply. Companies listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market would be expected to have two diverse directors within five years of the SEC’s approval.
Notably, companies that are unable to meet the board composition objectives within the required timeframes would not be subject to delisting provided that they provide a public explanation of their reasons for not meeting the objectives.
Startups hoping to go public may also have to consider diversity if they plan to use Goldman Sachs as their underwriter. Effective July 1, the bank will only underwrite IPOs in the US and Europe of private companies that have at least one diverse board member. Starting in 2021, Goldman Sachs will increase the target to two diverse candidates.
Goldman Sachs is the largest underwriter of initial public offerings (IPOs) in the United States. In support of the policy change, Goldman Sachs emphasized that companies with diverse leadership perform better. In a statement about the new policy, CEO David Solomon stated that “[i]n addition to the real commercial benefits, it’s clear that changing the stereotypes associated with corporate decision-making will have many positive effects for society as a whole.”
While Solomon acknowledged that board diversity has increased in recent years, he contended that progress has been too slow. In the last two years, more than 60 companies went public in the US and Europe without a diverse board member, according to the company.
Board diversity is an issue that companies of all sizes should take seriously. When selecting new board members or considering a board diversity policy, it is imperative to address business and legal considerations. Given that this is a quickly evolving area of law, we also encourage businesses to stay on top of any new regulatory requirements.
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Howard Bader, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-896-4100.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

In New Jersey, an irrevocable trust can sometimes be modified even though its name suggests otherwise, and one of the primary tools for doing so is a process called decanting. Whether decanting is available depends on the specific terms of the trust and the discretion given to the trustee. Key takeaways: New Jersey has no […]
Author: Marc J. Comer

Intellectual property valuation determines the monetary value of a business’s IP assets, and it drives outcomes in licensing deals, joint ventures, mergers and acquisitions, financing, and ownership disputes. The most valuable assets of a business are often the things that cannot be seen or touched: a proprietary process, a copyrighted work, brand recognition, or the […]
Author: Jay McDaniel

For New Jersey data center owners and operators, a service agreement may look routine when it is signed. The network is functioning, the vendor is meeting its installation schedule, and the parties have agreed on pricing and performance specifications. The provisions that seem most important at that stage are often the technical ones. That changes […]
Author: George McGowan

The Fort Monmouth redevelopment has entered its execution phase, and it is repositioning the broader Monmouth County real estate market. When Netflix and the Fort Monmouth Economic Revitalization Authority closed on the 292-acre Mega Parcel in December 2025, the transaction did more than hand over a deed. It marked the moment Fort Monmouth stopped being […]
Author: Donald M. Pepe

Owning a residential rental property in New Jersey involves more than finding tenants and collecting rent. Property owners must comply with a combination of state laws, municipal ordinances, building and housing codes, and zoning and land use regulations. These requirements can affect everything from the number of dwelling units permitted at a property to whether […]
Author: Donald M. Pepe

The five most common real estate disputes are breach of contract claims, landlord-tenant conflicts, zoning and land use disagreements, construction claims, and boundary disputes. Understanding why each arises, and taking preventive steps early, can help property owners, tenants, developers, and investors avoid costly litigation. Key Takeaways: Real estate transactions are complex endeavors involving numerous parties […]
Author: Paul Grossman
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!