What Settlement Data Says About the Evolution of Activism

Pat Tucker is a Senior Managing Director, Garrett Muzikowski is a Senior Director, and Sean Lange is a Director for Financial Communications at FTI Consulting. This post is based on their FTI Consulting memorandum.

Since the introduction of Universal Proxy in August 2022, one of the most notable changes in shareholder activism has been the significant increase in settlements between Boards and activists. With heightened risks for individual directors in proxy fights, Boards have been more inclined to settle, and settle quickly. Counter intuitively, this has also corresponded with a time where management teams are winning decisively in proxy contests – seven of eight proxy contests held in the U.S. so far in 2024 resulted in full victories for management.

As we close out the 2024 proxy season, those in the activism defense world are starting to ask: are Boards settling too quickly?

READ MORE »

Private Equity and Net Asset Value Debt – Ripping-Up the Rules of Private Equity

Bobby V. Reddy is a Professor of Corporate Law at the University of Cambridge. This post is based on his working paper.

The Rules of Private Equity Leveraged Buyout Funds

The private equity leveraged buyout (LBO) is, unsurprisingly given the name, characterized by high levels of debt. Debt leverages returns for LBO funds, and also scales-up the size and number of investments a fund can make. However, debt used for LBO acquisitions is usually carefully managed – the fund itself does not customarily incur the debt. Typically, a fund will establish separate limited liability special purpose vehicles (SPVs) to acquire each portfolio company, with debt incurred by an SPV or SPVs in each case. Post-acquisition, the relevant portfolio company guarantees the repayment of the debt used for its acquisition. If there is a default on the acquisition debt, the relevant lender can only enforce against the assets of the portfolio company for which the debt was incurred to acquire, and cannot attach to any other assets of the fund, including any other portfolio company owned by the fund. The rules of private equity LBOs – no liabilities at the fund-level, and compartmentalize your portfolio investments into individual silos.

READ MORE »

DEI: How to lead without going offside

Simon Kerr-Davis is a Counsel and Laurie Ollivent is a Senior Associate at Linklaters LLP. This post is based on their Linklaters memorandum. 

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are boardroom agenda items. Whilst much of the focus has been on achieving greater board diversity, the spotlight is increasingly moving towards the board’s responsibility for the organisation’s overall D&I strategy.

In a challenging landscape, with a variety of attitudes towards DEI being expressed by stakeholders, and legal limitations on what actions can lawfully be taken to improve DEI, how do boards safely drive change from the top? To what extent should boards intervene or let change happen organically?

Applying a DEI lens to all decisionmaking may be the only authentic way for boards to achieve meaningful and sustainable change in DEI, whilst mitigating the potential challenge of positive discrimination and avoiding the meritocracy trap.

READ MORE »

The director’s guide to shareholder activism

Matt DiGuiseppe is Managing Director at the Governance Insights Center, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. This post is based on his PwC memorandum.

Part I: Introduction

Shareholder activism today

The nature of shareholder activism, the key players, their preferred methods and their typical targets all tend to shift along with investment and business trends. They are influenced by market pressures, stores of capital and hot topics in governance. But during bull and bear markets, during recessions and times of growth, activists continue to look for opportunity, and companies continue to find themselves in the crosshairs.

The role of the board in an activist environment is an important one. Directors can help ensure the company anticipates which activists might target the company, and which issues they might raise. By being familiar with activism trends, they can encourage management to proactively address common issues that are attracting attention. In many cases, these issues deserve careful attention and should be reflected in company strategy. The board also plays a key role in shareholder engagement, and in responding to activist requests and demands. What do boards of directors need to know to navigate this environment? What can they learn from shareholders, and how can they leverage the benefits and insights activists can provide?

READ MORE »

The SEC’s Approach to Cybersecurity Disclosure Decisions

Jennifer LeeShoba Pillay, and H. Kurt von Moltke are Partners at Jenner & Block LLP. This post is based on a Jenner & Block memorandum by Ms. Lee, Ms. Pillay, Mr. Moltke, Charles Riely and Sean Sheely.

The SEC’s Director of Corporation Finance, Erik Gerding, recently issued two statements regarding a public company’s disclosure obligations in response to a cybersecurity incident. These remarks follow the adoption of the SEC’s new cybersecurity requirements for public companies last year, as well as a series of SEC cybersecurity enforcement actions, including SEC v. SolarWinds et al., the developments of which we covered here and here. This client alert analyzes the key points of Mr. Gerding’s statements in light of the SEC’s cybersecurity enforcement landscape and provides takeaways for public companies.

READ MORE »

The Supreme Court’s Business Docket: October Term 2023 in Review

John Savarese, Kevin Schwartz and Noah Yavitz are Partners at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. This post is based on a Wachtell Lipton memorandum by Mr. Savarese, Mr. Schwartz, Mr. Yavitz, Adam Goodman, and Akua Abu.

Last week, the Supreme Court concluded its most consequential Term in years, with a flood of decisions on contentious issues ranging from abortion access to the regulation of social media companies and gun possession to presidential immunity. The Court’s business docket was no less active. While the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau narrowly survived a constitutional challenge to its funding mechanism, the Court’s conservative majority elsewhere struck body blows to the administrative state—including the long-anticipated reversal of the Chevron doctrine of judicial deference to agency interpretation of ambiguous statutes. Beyond this headline-grabbing showstopper, the Court issued a string of commercially significant decisions, affecting bankruptcy, arbitration, securities, and employment law. We summarize below the key business decisions from this Term and flag a few key cases to watch in the coming Term.

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: July 5-11, 2024


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of July 5-11, 2024

Disney’s Victory in 2024 Proxy Contest: Lessons for Boards and Practitioners


Trends and Updates from the 2024 Proxy Season


How Companies Can Prepare for the Next Round of DEI Litigation


Chancery Court Grants Rare Motion to Dismiss Suit Governed by Entire Fairness


Common Ownership and Hedge Fund Activism: An Unholy Alliance?



Shareholder Proposal No-Action Requests in the 2024 Proxy Season


Dark Accounting Matter


S&P 500 CEO Pay Rebounds After Decline in 2022


The Activism Vulnerability Report


The Overlooked Reality of Shareholder Activism in China: Defying Western Expectations


Statement Regarding the Activision Amendments


Court Scrutinizes Sponsor and Financial Advisor Conflicts Under Up-C Structure


Dissonance in Climate Disclosure: the SEC, EU, California, and ISSB Regimes


Jarkesy Supreme Court Ruling Limits SEC’s Enforcement Authority


Jarkesy Supreme Court Ruling Limits SEC’s Enforcement Authority

Kenneth Breen and Phara Guberman are Partners at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP. This post is based on their Cadwalader memorandum.

In a 6-3 decision issued on June 27, 2024 in SEC v. Jarkesy, the U.S. Supreme Court curtailed the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) enforcement authority in recognizing that there is a right to a jury trial in SEC actions alleging securities fraud where civil penalties are sought. Prior to the Jarkesy opinion, the SEC had unfettered discretion to bring securities fraud actions in the forum of its choosing (whether that be in federal court or an SEC administrative proceeding), the choice of which was not required to be disclosed prior to the action being brought. It can no longer forum shop.

The choice of forum can dictate both a defendant’s procedural protections and the available remedies for the SEC. When a case is heard in federal court, a life-tenured, salary-protected Article III judge presides, the litigation is governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence and ordinary rules of discovery, a jury finds the facts depending on the claim, and there is an appellate path should one be necessary and appropriate. Contrarily, when the SEC adjudicates the matter in-house, the Commission or a delegated Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) presides acting as both judge and jury; it finds facts, it decides discovery disputes, it determines the scope and form of permissible evidence, and the SEC’s Rules of Practice govern.

READ MORE »

Dissonance in Climate Disclosure: the SEC, EU, California, and ISSB Regimes

Stavros Gadinis is Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law. This post is based on his working paper.

The global push for corporate climate disclosure has gained significant momentum in recent years, with major financial centers and regulatory bodies introducing new rules and frameworks. However, this increased activity has led to a puzzling divergence in approaches, particularly regarding the disclosure of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. While there is broad agreement on the importance of climate-related financial disclosures, regulators and standard-setters have taken notably different paths in implementing these requirements, especially concerning Scope 3 emissions. This divergence is particularly striking given the shared goals of enhancing transparency, combating greenwashing, and accelerating the transition to a low-carbon economy. The puzzle lies in understanding why, despite these common objectives, major jurisdictions have arrived at such different regulatory solutions. This situation raises important questions about the feasibility, effectiveness, and potential impacts of various disclosure regimes.

READ MORE »

Court Scrutinizes Sponsor and Financial Advisor Conflicts Under Up-C Structure

Gail Weinstein is Senior Counsel, Philip Richter is a Partner, and Steven Epstein is Managing Partner at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP. This post is based on a Fried Frank memorandum by Ms. Weinstein, Mr. Richter, Mr. Epstein, Steven Steinman, Warren S. de Wied, and Maxwell Yim and is part of the Delaware law series; links to other posts in the series are available here.

In Firefighters’ Pension System v. Foundation Building Materials, Inc. (May 28, 2024), the Delaware Court of Chancery, at the pleading stage of litigation, declined to dismiss claims challenging the $1.37 billion sale of Foundation Building Materials, Inc. (the “Company”), to an unrelated third party in an arm’s-length transaction (the “Merger”), after the Company had gone public in an Up-C initial public offering (the “IPO”).

In connection with the IPO, the Company’s private equity fund sponsor, which controlled the Company both before and after the IPO (the “Sponsor”), had entered into a customary tax receivable agreement with the Company (the “TRA”). Under the TRA, the Sponsor was entitled to terminate the TRA upon a change of control of the Company, and in such event to receive an early termination payment (the “ETP”), calculated as the present value of the payments that the Sponsor would have received over the full term of the TRA, under certain assumptions favorable to the Sponsor.

READ MORE »

Page 1 of 1163
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1,163