When it comes to corporate governance, board members and shareholder activists do not often agree. But there is at least one opportunity for common ground: better communication.
Our Blog: The Podium
The new reality is that no public company, no matter how highly regarded or well managed, is immune from activist attention. The number of activist campaigns waged against public companies increased in 2015 to 375 according to the research firm FactSet.
Once an activist surfaces, every move a company makes can have a profound and cascading effect on its long-term viability. Therefore, it is essential to craft response plans before any sign of danger emerges.
By Dennis Walsh, Vice President
I recently moderated a webinar hosted by NIRI on social media strategies for investor relations. On the panel with me were David Jackson, CEO, Seeking Alpha; RJ Jones, Investor Relations Officer, Zillow; and Andrew Shapiro, Founder, President and Portfolio Manager, Lawndale Capital Management.
The discussion made clear that professional investors are using social media - activists included. In addition, all public companies should have a social media strategy, even if the objective is just to monitor the online conversation.
If you are in charge of managing your company’s investor relations program, you might be wondering how to get started developing your social media strategy. Try following this three step approach:
By Maureen Wolff, President and Partner, Sharon Merrill Associates
For many companies, a looming activist shareholder is no longer the exception – it’s the rule. Activist shareholders had launched 495 campaigns targeting U.S. companies through November 2016, according to FactSet SharkRepellent. And as of the end of November, the number of proxy fights for board seats was at its highest level since 2009, at 101 contests.
The threat of activist investors encircling your company can be intimidating - unless you understand how to engage, respond and communicate. Here are 10 strategies to help you prepare.
By Dennis Walsh, Senior Consultant & Director of Social Media
Last week, I attended the NIRI Annual Conference. It was very educational and an incredible opportunity to meet and exchange ideas with many of the approximately 1,300 investor relations professionals from more than 20 countries that attended the event in Seattle.
NIRI organized more than 45 informative panel sessions and workshops that were led by some of IR’s top influencers. While I wanted to attend each one, unfortunately I am not omnipresent. For those that I did attend, I left with several key takeaways that can benefit any IR program and wanted to share those with you here at The Podium.
Investor Presentation, IR Program Planning, Board Packages, Shareholder Surveillance, Disclosure, Targeting, Board Communications, Annual Meeting, Corporate Governance, Shareholder Activism, SEC, Proxy Season, Board of Directors, Proxy Access, NIRI, Disclosure Policy, IRO, CFO, Social Media, Investor Relations, Activist Investors
By Maureen Wolff, President and Partner
Nothing has more power to change a boardroom’s dynamics than the election of dissident directors – especially when they arrive as a twosome. I had the honor of moderating a panel discussion on shareholder activism at the National Association of Corporate Directors New England Chapter breakfast event earlier this month, where seasoned board members talked about the lessons they’ve learned in battling high-profile proxy contests over the years.
One of the stories, told by a former board chairman, involved the legendary corporate raider Carl Icahn. A manufacturing glitch had resulted in a steep drop in his company’s share price. After repeated attempts, Icahn was finally successful in having two of his nominees elected to the board. This occurred not long after the principal of another activist institution had been elected as a director, and not long before the company received an unsolicited tender offer at a substantial premium to the then-current share price.
The former chairman painstakingly recreated the scenarios that unfolded over the next few months as the board considered the takeover offer. At first, he focused on the gulf in interests and motivations between the newly elected “directors” and long-time members of the board. Unlike the established directors, who had long been personally committed to the company’s vision, mission and business strategy, the dissidents’ only interest was in immediately monetizing the company’s value for shareholders, he said. Predictably, these conflicting goals led to tremendous stress and friction on the board.
When it comes to corporate governance, board members and shareholder activists are usually on opposite ends of the spectrum. But at separate conferences in New York and Boston this month, the two camps expressed a surprisingly similar view about the most effective way to deal with the anticipated increase in shareholder activism in 2011: better communication.
According to a study by law firm Schulte Roth & Zabel (SRZ), 76% of activists surveyed identified “dialogue/negotiations with management” as the most effective activist strategy to achieve desired results. None of the other proposed strategies – shareholder resolutions, publicity campaigns, proxy contests or litigation – received more than 16% of the vote.
Results of the study were highlighted at SRZ’s Shareholder Activism Conference in New York, which I attended as part of an invited group comprised mainly of hedge fund and private equity fund managers.
Hello again. We took a bit of a hiatus from blogging this summer, but we are now back to share a Halloween story sure to scare you straight!
Unless you are one of the 33 Chilean miners that were trapped underground for the past two months, you have likely been watching the drama unfold on Capitol Hill as the Business Roundtable and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce challenged the legality of the SEC’s new proxy access rule 14a-11, which allows qualifying shareholders to nominate directors for election at shareholder meetings and requires the corporation to include those nominees in the standard proxy statement. The petitioners claim that the new rules are subjective and violate federal and state law and the United States Constitution, and that the SEC did not assess the effect of the rules on efficiency, competition and capital formation. As a result, implementation of the rule has been delayed pending a resolution of the Court of Appeals. So the new proxy access rules will most likely not be implemented until the 2012 proxy season, at the earliest. Upon hearing this news, public corporations across the nation let out a collective sigh of relief.
Shareholder Meeting, Board Communications, Strategic Messaging, Annual Meeting, Shareholder Activism, Investor Relations Agency, Proxy Season, Proxy Access, Crisis Communications, Board Structure, Shareholder Communications, Investor Relations, Investor Relations Firm, Activist Investors
The term “shareholder activism” can sometimes send a shiver down your spine and conjure up all kinds of unwelcome events – unhappy shareholders, proxy contests, shareholder proposals, 13D filings and withhold vote campaigns, to name just a few.
I recently moderated a NIRI Virtual Chapter webinar on “Shareholder Activism Trends.” The participants, consisting mainly of IROs at mid- and small-cap companies, were polled on several questions. The first question was, “Do you have a detailed plan in place for dealing with shareholder activism?” The majority answered “no.”
It may not be feasible to have a detailed plan for dealing with a threat that can take so many different forms. The lawmen and bandits who fought it out at the infamous O.K. Corral in 1881 had no idea how the showdown would play out – and neither will you if your company becomes an activist’s target. But that doesn’t mean you can’t be prepared. Here are four steps.
Corporate Access, Shareholder Meeting, Board Communications, Annual Meeting, Shareholder Activism, Proxy Season, Proxy Fight, Proxy Access, Crisis Communications, Board Structure, Disclosure Policy, Shareholder Communications, Investor Relations, Activist Investors
To whom is the corporation accountable? Before SOX, majority voting, proxy access and “say on pay,” director elections were democratic in name only, and the lines between board and management were blurry at best. Except for the occasional gadfly at an annual meeting, boards rarely communicated with shareholders directly.
Today, after nearly a decade of turmoil in the markets and changes in the regulatory environment, the insulated board is a thing of the past. Shareholders are coming to view directors as leaders whose perspectives may diverge from those of management, who are empowered to exercise independent judgment on matters of consequence, and who are accountable for corporate performance.
A small but growing number of boards, recognizing that investor expectations have changed, have made dialogue with shareholders a formal priority. They are experimenting with new approaches for nurturing this interaction and learning from the experience. Although systematic programs for board-shareholder communications are still atypical in Corporate America, it is not too early to make some observations about what the more successful efforts have in common.