When most people think shareholder activism, they think big
names and big hedge funds – Carl Icahn, Bill Ackman, Jana
Partners – who have the wherewithal to obtain a sizeable
stake in the target company. However, as explored by Ronald Barusch in the Wall Street
Journal, a new form of activism, spearheaded by a former Obama
aide, Harry J. Wilson, has shown that you don't need to carry a
big stick (or have a major stake in the target company) to have
clout as an activist.
In a February 9, 2015 notice to General Motors,
Wilson put the company on notice that for their 2015 annual general
meeting he (1) intends to nominate himself to stand for election
for a seat on the board; and (2) requests that a proposal be put to
shareholders that GM should carry out not less than $8 billion in
share repurchases. These are the sorts of requests that are fairly
typical in shareholder activism by the major funds. What is
atypical, however, is that Wilson is the beneficial owner of a mere
30,000 or so shares of GM.
Traditionally, in order to get clout as an activist, you have to
buy it, and in order to realize profits, you have to earn them
through your shareholdings. Instead, Wilson obtained the backing of
four funds to support his plan – Taconic, Appaloosa, HG Vora,
and Hayman – who collectively own approximately 31.2 million
shares, or 1.9%, of the company's stock. With respect to
Wilson's potential profits, the notice discloses that Wilson
has reached agreements with these funds providing for the
reimbursement of funds connected with his activism and for profit
sharing on any gains realized from the funds' shares, if his
plan is successful (as defined by the terms of those
On February 10, GM issued a
statement stating that it would evaluate the proposal, and
underlining its commitment to act in the best interest of all
Although certainly an inventive form of activism, commentators such as Barusch have raised
concerns about whether Wilson's incentives are in line with the
long-term best interest of GM. Specifically, the terms of his
profit sharing agreements, some of which may require adoption of a
version of a buyback plan or, at least, that the buyback proposal
be put to shareholders and voted upon, pose a risk of stymying
reasonable compromises that may be in the best interests of
shareholders. Similarly, Wilson's limited capital exposure and
the fact that the incentive fees are generally only realizable over
a three year period might arguably motivate Wilson to prefer
Any misalignment of interests is already a common concern for
targets of activist investors. These concerns are likely to be
magnified where activism occurs without the safeguard of a
substantial investment by the activist. However, such worries may
be offset by the interests of the underlying funds. Wilson's
bold move may be the start of a new trend in shareholder activism
that companies should be prepared to watch for and defend against
in the future.
Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
Norton Rose Fulbright is a global legal practice. We provide
the world's pre-eminent corporations and financial institutions
with a full business law service. We have more than 3800 lawyers
based in over 50 cities across Europe, the United States, Canada,
Latin America, Asia, Australia, Africa, the Middle East and Central
Recognized for our industry focus, we are strong across all
the key industry sectors: financial institutions; energy;
infrastructure, mining and commodities; transport; technology and
innovation; and life sciences and healthcare.
Wherever we are, we operate in accordance with our global
business principles of quality, unity and integrity. We aim to
provide the highest possible standard of legal service in each of
our offices and to maintain that level of quality at every point of
Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright Australia,
Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright South
Africa (incorporated as Deneys Reitz Inc) and Fulbright &
Jaworski LLP, each of which is a separate legal entity, are members
('the Norton Rose Fulbright members') of Norton Rose
Fulbright Verein, a Swiss Verein. Norton Rose Fulbright Verein
helps coordinate the activities of the Norton Rose Fulbright
members but does not itself provide legal services to
The content of this article is intended to provide a
general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be
sought about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
A fundamental principle of contract law in Canada is that the parties to a contract are usually free to negotiate and agree upon any terms which will advance their respective (and sometimes mutual) interests.
Royal Bank of Canada v. Surje & Company Inc. is a recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The personal defendant, Sunny Bhasin held most of the common shares in Surge & Company Inc., the corporate defendant.
The use of electronic signatures is becoming increasingly commonplace in commercial transactions, as individuals and businesses capitalize on the administrative efficiency afforded by today’s digital world.
Following the Divisional Court's decision in Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Ryerson University, companies that contract with government institutions should be aware that such contracts are likely open to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
Back in April 2015, we discussed key questions to keep in mind when negotiating earn-outs, and looked at recent trends coming out of the American Bar Association's 2014 Canadian Private Target M&A Deal Points Study (the 2014 ABA Study).
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).