Shareholder activism and engagement

September 2024  |  ROUNDTABLE | BOARDROOM INTELLIGENCE

Financier Worldwide Magazine

September 2024 Issue

Shareholder activism remains high in 2024, with the number of campaigns on track to surpass last year. Driving this activity is activism focused on improvements in operational performance, accountability for operational miscues, valuation gaps and board refreshment of long-tenured directors – much of which is targeted at larger, high-profile companies. With interest rates, geopolitical challenges and market volatility expected to inform the activist playbook in the short to medium term, all the signs point to activity remaining elevated for the foreseeable future.

FW: What do you consider to be the most significant developments in shareholder activism over the past 12 months or so?

Riches: It has been interesting to examine how the universal proxy card has impacted contested director elections in the US where we have seen companies settling with activists more frequently and far quicker than in previous years. Another noteworthy dynamic is the increase in situations where multiple activists are targeting a company at the same time, often pushing for different objectives, with several prominent mega-cap situations drawing more attention to this trend. These scenarios can really complicate things for both sides and have led to settlement agreements being placed under more scrutiny. We have also seen a big jump in the number of campaigns led by former company directors and founders, in addition to activists including former company executives on their slate of nominees. The narrative of these ‘insider campaigns’ will often revolve around the dissident highlighting how a company’s performance has declined in the period since their tenure and pushing for new strategies and reforms to rectify it.

Glover: Over the past 12 months, activists have increased their focus on operational and strategic issues. They are identifying companies that they believe are underperforming their peers or pursuing flawed strategies and arguing for change. Campaigns with this type of focus now outnumber campaigns that make M&A-related demands; in a lukewarm M&A market, pushing for M&A events loses some of its appeal. Governance remains an issue in virtually every campaign; activists use governance arguments and the threat of a proxy contest to create leverage. Governance-focused arguments have been most successful when the activists are able to describe a specific problem, such as when they can point to a chief executive who has made fundamental strategic mistakes or who has failed to establish a meaningful succession process. Proxy contests have become more personal, in part as a result of the universal proxy card rules. With the advent of these rules, all management and activist candidates are listed on a single proxy card and stockholders can pick and choose among the two sets of candidates rather than being forced to choose either all of the management candidates or all of the activist candidates. As a result, activists have been able to focus their attacks on individual management board candidates whom they think are particularly vulnerable.

Warrick: While activism continues to be a core component of the investor value generation ecosystem, the pattern of practice of traditional activists, along with other investors utilising activist tactics, continues to evolve. Many activists continue to embrace a constructive and collaborative approach to engagement with targeted companies, opting for private engagement, often with negotiated settlements or non-agreement mandates, without ever going public. Another significant development is the strategic collaboration among activists. Tactics such as ‘swarming’ and the forming of ‘wolf packs’ have become more prevalent, where multiple activists target a single company, either through implicit or explicit coordination or, in some cases, with opposing agendas. Furthermore, the threat level for many companies has increased as an activist attack is no longer limited to traditional hedge funds.

Katz: Shareholder activism in the US has accelerated over the last 12 months due to a variety of factors and there is no single development to explain this growth. Some of it is likely due to the impact of higher interest rates limiting the options available to US companies to pursue acquisition strategies and otherwise increasing borrowing costs, making them easier targets. Activists have continued to go after larger, high-profile companies like Disney, Match, Macy’s, Autodesk, Southwest and Starbucks. Despite the many claims that the universal proxy card would be a game-changer, it has been anything but, perhaps leading only to quicker settlements. In practice, the universal proxy card has favoured neither the activist nor the targeted company, although it has made proxy contests more personal as individual company directors are called-out and specifically targeted.

Lissauer: Shareholder activism activity remained elevated in 2024, with the number of campaigns currently on track to surpass 2023. After sitting on the sidelines in the first year of the universal proxy card, major activists returned to launching proxy contests in 2024 which led to some of the most notable campaigns of the proxy season. Activists ran proxy contests at some of the largest players in their respective sectors, which dominated headlines. Additionally, chief executives and management teams have been targeted by activists looking to push for accountability for underperformance. A major shift in campaign themes in 2024 is that activists are now frequently seeking to remove chief executives, including replacement chief executives, on proxy fight slates and calling for new leadership as a key demand.

FW: What are some of the common factors driving activist campaigns?

Glover: Activists have been targeting companies with operational or strategic problems and calling for change, including lower costs, management changes or strategy shifts. Although M&A-focused campaigns are not quite as common as they were, activists have continued to suggest that target boards should sell the company or spin-off significant divisions and assets. They also continue to oppose announced deals that they believe undervalue the target. Governance issues remain common themes as activists couple demands for board changes or other governance objectives with economic demands. As recently as last year, activist campaigns that focused on environmental and social issues were sometimes able to get meaningful traction. But the anti-environmental, social and governance (ESG) movement has become more powerful, and investors seem to be more reluctant to support ESG campaigns unless the activist is able to demonstrate a clear link between the target’s perceived ESG deficiencies and an underperforming stock price.

Warrick: While activist investors employ a range of strategies to influence company governance and strategy, which can vary depending on the current macroeconomic environment, investor preferences, company size and industry specifics, the ultimate goal to positively impact share price and return to investors remains consistent. Over the last 12 months we have certainly noted an increase in campaigns targeting companies to make operational adjustments. This has involved a push for changes in management, a reevaluation of companies’ methods for implementing their long-term objectives, and, when necessary, the revision of these long-term plans themselves. In addition, many activists are requesting that companies modify their capital allocation plan through share buybacks and increased return of capital to shareholders. While there has been a notable decrease in the number of activism campaigns that include an M&A thesis, in large part due to the recent M&A market, many activism campaigns still encourage companies to seek strategic transactions to generate value, focusing in many instances on divestitures or spin offs of businesses that negatively impact value.

Katz: Over the last 15 years, the most common issue focused on by activists was capital allocation – specifically the return of capital to shareholders through stock buybacks or dividends instead of the company using the capital to reinvest in the company’s business or to make acquisitions. These opportunities have largely been exhausted. Today, the more established activists are targeting operational activism, which takes significantly longer and is more difficult but, when successful, can create very significant returns. Operational activism focuses on changes to the business, and often the management team, that may take multiple years to see results. Another common tactic targeted by activists continues to be sale of the company – either to a strategic buyer or taking the company private – and some activists have even gotten into the business of taking companies private themselves. We are also seeing more situations involving multiple activists, which makes it increasingly difficult for companies to decide how to respond appropriately.

Lissauer: All activist campaigns and investments are different, but recently we have seen activists focus on improvements in operational performance, accountability for operational miscues, valuation gaps, and board refresh of long-tenured directors. A thesis centred on operational improvements will inherently take longer for companies to implement and see results, contributing to the larger number of campaigns that remain ongoing – 49 percent of those launched in 2024. Activists looking for quick wins are often coupling operational demands with calls for changes in leadership, aggressively pushing for chief executives to step down. Further, as we continue to see a rebound in M&A activity, we are starting to see the return of M&A-focused activism campaigns.

Riches: Financial activist campaigns are almost always balance sheet driven, so an activist will typically focus their efforts around pushing for a company to make changes to its capital allocation and governance structure or to rethink core strategies. But an investor will often argue that the best way to create value for shareholders is to sell the company outright. As inflation rates start to cool and the M&A market picks up, activists are becoming more aggressive in their arguments for companies to sell as well as pushing for a break-up or to spin-off certain assets. Activists have also been targeting smaller companies much more frequently in the past 18 months. Valuations at the sub $2bn market cap range have on average remained much lower than large cap companies which were able to recover from the pandemic far quicker, creating more opportunities for activists whose core strategy is always to find companies which trade at a discount to their intrinsic value.

FW: Have any recent campaigns caught your eye? What insights can we draw from their outcome?

Warrick: There is not necessarily a specific campaign that comes to mind, but rather a trend. There is an increase of the phenomenon known as ‘swarming’, whereby multiple activists independently target the same company during overlapping time periods, sometimes with different agendas or initiatives. Dealing with a single activist investor can be a significant undertaking for a company’s board, as it requires careful navigation and strategic decision making. However, when multiple activists are involved, the complexity and difficulty of the situation can increase exponentially. This is primarily because each activist may have different objectives and demands, which can range from seeking board representation to advocating for parts of the business to be spun off or pushing for increased stock buybacks. In a traditional ‘one on one’ campaign, a company and its board can engage with the activist to determine if there is alignment on potential value-enhancing initiatives.

Katz: There have been a number of interesting situations ranging from the Trian campaign at Disney to the union-led campaign at Starbucks. The Trian campaign at Disney is notable for several features, in addition to the fact that it appears to be the most expensive proxy contest to date. First, there were actually two activists involved, Trian and Blackwells, which complicated matters including with respect to items like the universal proxy card and suggesting how Disney shareholders should cast their votes. Second, although Trian lost at the ballot box – with neither of its nominees elected to the Disney board – it won with respect to shareholder returns, as Disney was one of the best performing stocks over the relevant period, in part because Disney was seen as adopting some of the strategies suggested by Trian. In Starbucks, a coalition of labour unions sought to elect three directors to the board in an effort to combat what were seen as anti-union activities. Ultimately, the coalition withdrew their slate after the company agreed to commence negotiations. This was the first time that a labour union used these types of tactics to promote its human capital issues and it is unlikely to be the last.

Riches: Elliott Management’s campaign at Southwest Airlines is a really interesting one for a few reasons. Firstly, the timing of the campaign is unusual as the nomination deadline does not fall until December 2024, and so to see the campaign initiated in July is much earlier than would be expected given activists tend to start public campaigns closer to the proxy season in order to build momentum ahead of the annual general meeting. Similarly, Elliott’s calls to replace Bob Jordan, chief executive of Southwest Airlines, from day one is uncommon with activists typically focusing on the need for a change in company strategy before introducing the arguments for a change of leadership. Finally, we have not seen much activism in the airline industry before now but with Carl Ichan’s investment in JetBlue, we now have two of the most prominent activists with significant positions in the sector and it will be fascinating to see how these situations pan out. Not many situations went all the way to a vote this year but Ancora Advisors’ bid to take control of the board of railroad operator Norfolk Southern was one of the most fiercely contested proxy battles of the season.

Glover: Disney has been the target of several activist campaigns that put significant pressure on the board and the management team. Nelson Peltz and Trian launched a campaign in late 2022, expressing concern about Disney’s declining stock price, strategic direction and expense levels. Trian withdrew in early 2023 after the Disney board reinstalled Bob Iger as chief executive and the company announced significant budget cuts and strategy changes. But Trian restarted its campaign in late 2023 as losses continued to mount and the stock price failed to improve. As part of the second campaign, Peltz proposed that he and two other Trian nominees serve on the board and argued that the company had failed to establish a credible chief executive succession plan. Other activists, including Value Act, Ancora Capital and Blackwell Capital jumped into the fray. Disney was ultimately successful in defeating the Peltz candidates, but only after a bruising, expensive campaign.

FW: How have activist tactics evolved in recent years? What are some of the approaches they are taking to exert their influence and effect change?

Katz: Generally, established activists are becoming more refined and tactical in their approaches to the companies they choose to target. In part due to activists and the companies they target, and perhaps due in part to the new universal proxy card rules, settlements are occurring earlier in the process and this results in directors joining boards at much earlier stages in the process. Today, in many situations, the first time the public learns that an activist is in the stock is when the company and the activist announce a settlement. One of the biggest changes is that activist investors are attracting experienced directors as their candidates. Particularly for smaller companies, the activist may be able to attract higher calibre directors than the company itself can attract. That is a very powerful incentive for a company to settle.

Riches: ESG arguments are becoming more central to an activist’s investment thesis and public engagement. Returning to Southwest as an example, Elliott highlighted the airlines’ handling of a scheduling crisis over the 2022 holidays due to malfunctioning software systems to further emphasise the company’s underperformance and underline the need for change. SOC Investment Group’s campaign at Starbucks is likely to be a bellwether campaign for activists focused on environmental and social issues. SOC was focused on holding the company to account on worker rights and a flawed human capital management strategy but nominated a full slate of directors rather than just filing a non-binding shareholder proposal which forced the company to take its demands much more seriously. Although it was highly unlikely for the activist to replace the entire board, under the new universal proxy card rules it had a much better chance of winning a seat or two on the board than before. Ultimately, SOC withdrew the nominations but only after Starbucks had come to an agreement with its labour union to improve worker rights. We expect to see more of these types of campaigns going forward, with investors nominating candidates to put more pressure on companies to take their agenda seriously.

Glover: Because each activist has its own investment horizon, objectives and tactics, activism reflects a variety of strategies to effect change. Some funds publicly announce their objectives at an early stage, issuing white papers and using the press and social media to maximise pressure on the target. Others negotiate with the target privately unless and until they decide the target is not sufficiently responsive. Some establish fairly large positions in the target; others invest less capital. Some litigate in order to access board minutes or other material to gain inside information to use in their campaigns. Activists with longer investment horizons are willing to wage multi-year campaigns, or to take aim at a company they previously targeted when they are not satisfied with the progress being made. Much of an activist’s leverage relies on the threat of a proxy campaign to replace management’s board candidates. However, activists do not launch a contest in every case.

Lissauer: Now into its second proxy season, we are beginning to see the effects of the universal proxy card and the way it has shaped activists’ approach to assembling slates and running fights and how companies need to refine their defences. Activists have tailored their approaches to be more selective with their nominees and have found candidates with defendable track records to help implement their desired changes. Additionally, the universal proxy card has ushered in an era of highly personal campaigns focused on directors and management as shareholders now have the ability to vote on candidates individually, not solely according to a slate of candidates. We saw a number of firsts this year – the first single-issue social-focused proxy fight, the first multi-activist proxy fight, and the first control-slate proxy fight. Activists, including smaller non-traditional funds, have used environmental and social issues to build shareholder support against boards and management.

Warrick: Shareholder activism has evolved significantly, with activists employing more sophisticated and varied tactics to influence companies. Traditionally, activists buy shares and push for changes to enhance value, often seeking board representation or proposing strategic moves like mergers. To complement these tactics, activists are increasingly using social media and public campaigns to rally support and pressure companies, which can lead to reputational risks for those that do not respond effectively. Activists are also increasingly collaborating with institutional investors which, while not traditionally activists, engage discreetly with activists to influence corporate strategies. This shift marks a departure from the past when activism was primarily associated with hedge funds, illustrating a broader trend toward shareholder activism among institutional investors seeking to enhance long-term value and corporate governance. Proxy fights have become more strategic, targeting specific directors rather than entire boards and litigation is used as a tool to address governance failures.

FW: How are legal and regulatory developments affecting this space? To what extent do shareholder-friendly laws, for example, facilitate activism and make campaigns more likely to succeed?

Glover: The universal proxy card rules, which were adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in late 2022, appear to have given the activists more leverage. The rules, which require management and activist candidates to be listed on the same proxy card, give shareholders the ability to pick and choose among the management and activist candidates. As a result, it has become easier for activists to target weak management candidates and cheaper for them to run campaigns. Although the number of activist campaigns that led to proxy contests did not increase in 2023 or early 2024, the percentage of proxy contests that activists won increased significantly. In addition, the number of campaigns that resulted in an activist-favourable settlement increased. These trends suggest that companies are feeling greater pressure to settle because of the increased likelihood that they will lose if they engage in a proxy contest.

Lissauer: The SEC rolled out several significant changes impacting shareholder activism including the universal proxy card, updated 13D and 13G requirements, short sale disclosure requirements and ESG disclosure requirements. A number of these changes were the first updates to market behaviour in decades.

Warrick: The implementation of the universal proxy rule has altered the landscape of proxy contests by requiring that all director candidates be included on all proxy cards. Although this change was intended to increase transparency and shareholder choice, the actual impact on activist success in securing board seats appears to be minimal with respect to contests that go to a shareholder vote. However, an uptick in the speed and frequency of settlements between activists and companies suggests that the existence of the universal proxy card regime may provide activists a limited advantage and encourage companies to seek common ground with activists sooner rather than later. The SEC’s amendments to schedule 13D and 13G, which shorten the filing deadlines for disclosing substantial stakes in companies, may have some effect on activists’ approach to accumulating positions.

Riches: Since the universal proxy card rules came into effect, activists have found it harder to win board control. Now that the proxy advisers and institutions can mix and match between the company and dissident nominees, they are much more inclined to go for one or two seats less than control save for in the most severe cases of board entrenchment and company underperformance. It is worth noting that in situations where ISS and Glass Lewis have split recommendations, activists have struggled to win even a single seat. One area where activists have continued to look to nominate a full slate and take control of the board is in situations where they are simultaneously demanding for the company to sell. This is enabling the investor to place the board under more pressure and makes the M&A demands harder to dismiss when the company has to repel an activist board slate at the same time.

Katz: I do not see legal and regulatory developments significantly impacting shareholder activism. The universal proxy card was not a game-changer, nor were the recent amendments to the 13D disclosure requirements. The Moelis decision temporarily affected activist settlements but not in any meaningful manner. Obviously tougher enforcement of antitrust regulation may impact the strategies that activists use but is unlikely to significantly change the likelihood of success of a particular matter. Activists try to consider these issues before they launch their campaigns so these developments rarely affect outcomes. By way of example, if a legal or regulatory development made it easier to call shareholder meetings – such as by outlawing advance notice bylaw provisions – that type of structural change would give activists a greater advantage, but I think a development like that is unlikely, but not impossible.

FW: What strategies should companies consider to reduce the likelihood of becoming embroiled in an activist campaign? What shareholder engagement methods might be deployed, for example?

Riches: An activism preparedness programme can be regularly undertaken with corporate clients to reduce their risk to activism and ensure they are ready to respond should an activist appear. Ownership intelligence can identify the top institutions behind a company’s trading activity as well as alert them to any potential activist accumulations. Once shareholders have been fully identified, it is important to understand their voting policies and historical voting behaviour across a broad range of issues. From there an outreach programme can be devised to engage with shareholders and to effectively communicate the company’s strategy and execution of those objectives. It is also important to conduct an analysis of company performance, board and governance structure, compensation and ESG practices to identify and address possible weaknesses as well as potential activist attack vectors and necessary rebuttals. It is essential for any company to be prepared for activism in this way to avoid being on the back foot and risk losing a fight before it has even begun.

Lissauer: Companies should take an outside-looking-in approach to evaluate their operational and governance risks. A comprehensive vulnerability assessment is an important tool for companies to utilise to assess areas of potential exposure and to identify proactive steps to minimise risks. A key preparedness measure for companies is to carefully review possible activist arguments and develop rebuttal arguments. Additionally, directors and management teams are increasingly participating in shareholder engagement in the ‘off-season’, an important part of establishing strong relationships with shareholders and positioning the company well in the event of an activist approach. Proactive engagement has become essential to communicating the board and management’s strategy, as well as the importance of governance and other key issues, especially in the context of an activist approach. It is best to proactively establish these relationships with key shareholders before there is a specific need for their support.

Warrick: At the crux of all activism campaigns is the general belief by the activist investor that the target company is underperforming and underdelivering to its shareholders. Activists allocate a considerable amount of time and resources to understanding the targeted company and trying to identify specific areas where the company can make change, with the belief that such changes will lead to an increase in shareholder value. With that backdrop, the best defence to an activism campaign begins with the company having a clearly articulated strategic plan that it believes will lead to the best long-term value. While pursuing their outlined strategic goals, boards of directors and management teams should continuously evaluate their plan and act proactively, looking for weaknesses, areas of underperformance and potential pivot points. Ultimately, while completely avoiding activist threats may prove difficult, a strong plan that has been vetted and pressure tested by the board and management well positions the company to respond appropriately to activist pressure and not be unduly swayed by an activist’s tactics.

Katz: An active shareholder engagement programme is essential and companies should use the months between their annual meetings to engage with their largest shareholders in a meaningful manner. This engagement should include passive investors like index funds, recognising that some of these investors will decide that they do not want to, or need to, engage at that particular point in time. However, the willingness to reach out and offer to engage is itself important and will often be recognised. This engagement should focus on important issues the company is facing as well as other issues that may have arisen in connection with the company’s last annual meeting. It is important to keep notes regarding these meetings so that companies can follow up as necessary and, to the extent appropriate, reported in the company’s next proxy statement. Companies should also review reports from proxy advisory services and other rating services, so that relevant issues can be addressed with shareholders on a peremptory basis instead of defensively.

Glover: Companies can take various steps to prime their defences. Companies should ensure that their advance notice bylaws are state of the art and appropriately balance company interests in an orderly shareholder meeting and full disclosure about ownership of company securities and conflicts of interest, on one hand, and shareholders’ ability to exercise nomination rights, on the other. Recent Delaware Court of Chancery decisions regarding advance notice bylaws reflect that the court will generally support board decisions to adopt and enforce advance notice bylaws, but will strike down bylaws that appear preclusive, especially if adopted in response to activist threats. A stock watch service can help companies identify unusual stock trading patterns and alert them to possible activist activity. To better anticipate activist campaigns, companies should consider what demands an activist might make and plan how the company would respond. Does the company have divisions that could be sold? Is its business strategy working? Is board refreshment overdue? Does the company have a sound chief executive succession plan? The goal of this exercise is to identify potential weaknesses and either address them or be ready to explain why they are not weaknesses.

FW: Looking ahead, how do you expect shareholder activism to evolve? Are campaigns set to ramp up the pressure on boards, challenge corporate strategy and transform company culture?

Warrick: Shareholder activism is poised to escalate as savvy investors utilise social media and advanced analytics to examine corporate governance and performance, advocating for strategic changes such as mergers and operational enhancements to foster long-term value. In this context, the role of law firms with expertise in shareholder activism becomes critical for boards of directors who must adopt a proactive approach to these pressures. Law firms can guide boards in establishing and maintaining open lines of communication with shareholders. This is not just about regular engagement but also about understanding the nuances of shareholder perspectives and preempting activist strategies. In addition, regular reviews of company performance and governance are essential to identify and address vulnerabilities, with technology playing a pivotal role in understanding market sentiment and investor priorities.

Lissauer: In the short term, we expect interest rates, geopolitical challenges and market volatility to continue to inform the activist playbook. The first half of 2024 saw a surge of activist campaigns, almost half of which remain ongoing, setting the stage for longer campaigns leading into fall and winter 2024. Conversely, we have seen a trend that companies looking to settle with an activist have been settling more quickly to avoid protracted and costly campaigns, which we expect to continue as we head into the start of the 2025 proxy season. Additionally, an M&A rebound may give activists an additional ‘lever’ to pull. With an increase in M&A volumes expected for the remainder of 2024, activist demands to push for a sale or divestiture are likely to increase. Corporate separation activity will persist as organisations simplify and respond to investor pressure to allocate capital effectively as a means of unlocking value.

Katz: I believe that we are at an interesting time for shareholder activism. Established activists have gotten larger and more successful and have continued to attract investors. Over the last five years, there has been a shake out where many of the smaller activists have closed up shop since they have been unable to run multiple successful campaigns, but at the same time, some new activists have started successful funds. In addition, we may be nearing the end of an era, as it appears that Nelson Peltz, Carl Icahn, Bill Ackman and others appear to be taking a step back. So what will the next generation of activists bring? Probably more of the same – targeting underperforming companies, pressuring boards, challenging corporate strategies and pushing for quick fixes that will raise stock prices in the short term. The key question is whether activists and companies can focus on the longer term and create an environment where the best interests of the company and the shareholders over the long term becomes a shared priority.

Glover: Activists will continue to launch new campaigns at a vigorous pace through the end of 2024. They are likely to continue to focus on companies that operate in sectors that are experiencing rapid change, such as technology, healthcare, media and consumer goods. They will argue that these companies should make strategy and operational changes that the activists believe will lead to better performance. Because the universal proxy card rules give activists increased leverage, companies may feel more pressure to make accommodations and activists may be emboldened to be more aggressive. Activists will also continue to make governance issues a major focus as a way of creating leverage. In general, we may see more aggressive public campaigns and more successful proxy contests. Even if we do not see more contests, we are likely to see a high percentage of campaigns end with a settlement. But not all of the momentum will be in favour of the activists. The number of campaigns focused on ESG issues may decline, as investors become increasingly sceptical about the link between economic value and ESG factors.

Riches: After a couple of down years during the pandemic, activism has returned to the peak levels we saw in 2018/19 and all the signs point to activity remaining elevated for the foreseeable future. Activists are increasingly putting sustainability and compensation practices in the spotlight and tying these to financial performance. The universal proxy card has put individual directors who lack experience or have other demonstrable shortcomings more at risk. Furthermore, activists are putting forward more impressive candidates than ever before with proven track records and extensive industry experience in order to ensure they gain the support of institutional investors and proxy advisers. Global M&A tailwinds will continue to provide activists with a wider range of strategic options and create further opportunities for disruption. Fostering a culture of constructive dialogue with shareholders has never been more crucial for corporations.

Adam Riches chairs Alliance’s activism practice and is a frequent speaker on the topic of shareholder activism at events and conferences globally. Prior to joining Alliance, he formed part of the executive leadership team at Activist Insight where he helped design and build their market leading activism database. He splits his time between Alliance’s London and New York offices. He can be contacted on +44 (0)7510 702 820 or by email: ariches@allianceadvisorsllc.com.

Amy Lissauer is a managing director and global head of activism and raid defence at Bank of America. In her role, she advises companies across all industries on activism and raid defence, contested shareholder situations, proxy solicitations, investor relations and corporate governance matters. Ms Lissauer has advised over 300 companies facing activism or strategic raids. She can be contacted on +1 (646) 855 5209 or by email: amy.lissauer@bofa.com.

Stephen I. Glover is a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and has served as co-chair of the firm’s global M&A practice. Mr Glover has an extensive practice representing public and private companies in complex M&A, joint ventures, equity and debt offerings and corporate governance matters. His clients include large public corporations, emerging growth companies and middle market companies in a wide range of industries. He also advises private equity firms, individual investors and others. He can be contacted on +1 (202) 955 8593 or by email: siglover@gibsondunn.com.

Demetrius A. Warrick regularly advises public and private clients in a variety of corporate matters, including strategic acquisitions, divestitures, auctions, strategic investments, reorganisations, financial adviser engagements and joint ventures. He also has represented many companies with respect to shareholder activism, takeover preparedness, unsolicited proposals, contested proxy solicitations and other contests for corporate control. In addition, he has advised clients in designing and implementing shareholder rights plans and other corporate protective measures. He can be contacted on +1 (212) 735 3235 or by email: demetrius.warrick@skadden.com.

David A. Katz is a partner at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz in New York City, an adjunct professor at New York University School of Law and co-chair of the board of advisers of the NYU Law Institute for Corporate Governance and Finance. Mr Katz is a corporate attorney focusing on mergers and acquisitions, corporate governance, shareholder activism and complex securities transactions. He can be contacted on +1 (212) 403 1309 or by email: dakatz@wlrk.com.

© Financier Worldwide

THE PANELLISTS

Adam Riches

Alliance Advisors

Amy Lissauer

Bank of America Merrill Lynch

Stephen Glover

Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP

Demetrius A. Warrick
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

David A. Katz

Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz