Chrome CSS Drop Down Menu

« July 2008 | Main | September 2008 »

3 posts from August 2008

3 Senseless Steps in A Proxy Contest

Proxy contests are expensive and time consuming partially because they are littered with inane technicalities. Technicalities that seem to exist solely to exasperate the shareholder. In this post, we evaluate a few to illustrate the absurd steps an entrenched board takes - using your money as a shareholder.

The Shareholder List

In a proxy contest, the dissident investor contacts shareholders using a list provided by the target company (under state law or federal proxy rules). Typically the list is sold to the investor at an outrageously high price. There are the obvious costs of assembling it, but why must investors spend up to tens of thousands of dollars to receive the list? There is no valid reason I have heard that merits the high cost for a list that is really just an electronic file. It is a completely senseless charge and one that I believe is exploited by companies as a nuisance to dissident shareholders.

The investor is left with a Hobson's choice - he can pay the company its fee or hire a lawyer to challenge the excessive cost. This is a game companies can play since the cost of pursuing such a lawsuit would be far in excess of the inflated cost that it has demanded.

Continue reading "3 Senseless Steps in A Proxy Contest" »

Lipton Defends the Indefensible, Again and Again

Marty Lipton, the prominent Wachtell Lipton lawyer whom I have sparred with on numerous occasions, is no stranger to hyperbole about the "sanctity" of the corporate boardroom, but his latest comment about Anheuser-Busch is way over-the-top.

In a July 24 memo to clients (Corporate Governance Ratings Debunked), Lipton pointed out that the giant beermaker recently changed its bylaws to allow for yearly elections of directors, rather than every three years. As a result of this, the company was subjected to a hostile takeover by Belgian beermaker InBev, which was poised to run a proxy battle to get new directors elected to the board, asserts Lipton.

"Anheuser Busch is the latest US company to fall prey to a hostile takeover shortly after repealing its classified board in the name of adherence to best practices in corporate governance," Lipton said in the memo.

Unfortunately, Lipton has it all wrong in this classic anti-shareholder view. His opinion suggests that it is a good thing that the maker of Budweiser should be protected from takeovers to maintain the cozy "status quo" of its boardroom.

Continue reading "Lipton Defends the Indefensible, Again and Again" »

Response to WSJ Opinion Piece 'Why Carl Icahn Is Bad for Investors'

There will always be those who will defend the status quo in corporate governance and attempt to justify the indefensible. The Aug. 1 Wall Street Journal op-ed article, "Why Carl Icahn is Bad for Investors," by UCLA law professor Lynn Stout is a good example of this.

In my opinion, the article was so wrongheaded that I am surprised that it was afforded an appearance in a premier business newspaper. I hope better academic guidance is provided for students in California than that exemplified in the editorial.

Let's consider a few of the comments in the WSJ article by Lynn Stout.

Continue reading "Response to WSJ Opinion Piece 'Why Carl Icahn Is Bad for Investors'" »

Join United Shareholders of America

Please join the campaign for improved corporate governance and supply your information in the box provided. Your email will only be used in connection with United Shareholders of America activities. You will receive updates on our activities and how you can participate.

Only with numbers can we create change in Washington. Remember shareholders vote.

Add to your webpage

April 2009

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30