Top 10 Topics for Directors in 2015: Shareholder Activism

Dec 30, 2014

Reading Time : 3 min

With the threat of activism in the air, boards need to be prepared. Directors need to understand how activists think and what tactics and tools activists employ. They need to know company vulnerabilities that could attract an activist’s attention and understand what defenses the company has in place to protect itself. Directors also need to understand who their company’s shareholders are and what they care about. Some specific steps companies need to be taking include —

  • Understanding the company’s vulnerabilities. Boards need to carefully review their business and strategy to identify any weak spots that might create concern among investors. Underperformance, particularly as it relates to industry peers, is the easiest way to draw activists’ attention. Other lightning rods are large cash balances that could be returned to shareholders through dividends or stock buybacks, unrelated or underperforming divisions or business units that could be spun off, and other assets, such as real estate, that do not generate a sufficient return and could be sold. Once vulnerabilities are identified, boards need to determine how to address them while focusing on what is in the best interests of shareholders.
  • Understanding the company’s defenses. It is also critical that boards assess what defenses the company has in place or readily deployable, as many companies have dismantled their takeover defenses in response to proxy advisory firms over the years. While the Allergen situation has taught us that overly-aggressive defenses can backfire, boards need to be able to defend their companies from opportunistic attacks.
  • Preparing for an activist attack. Companies need to be prepared to react if an activist comes calling. Companies should assemble an activist response team, which may include a small team of corporate officers, legal, financial and proxy advisors and investor relations personnel, to develop a plan for dealing with activists. Having a game plan in place that addresses various scenarios will lead to a more thoughtful, effective and timely response.
  • Knowing and engaging your shareholders. Companies need to understand the breakdown of their shareholder base and monitor trading of the company’s shares. Companies also need to reach out to significant shareholders. This is not only a good way to find out what they want and get their perspectives on the company, but also helps build credibility and stronger relationships. In addition to cultivating relationships with major investors, companies need to continually and effectively communicate their business strategies and plans for value creation to the marketplace, as well as to smaller, but potentially more vocal, investors. Companies should also be taking advantage of the power of the Internet by making sure their Web sites are up-to-date and fully communicating the company’s message. And companies should be actively monitoring shareholder concerns and opinions that are expressed through blogs and other shareholder forums and proactively responding to shareholder issues before they escalate.
  • Determining director involvement. As part of shareholder engagement, companies need to determine whether, and to what extent, directors should be communicating directly with shareholders on the company’s behalf. At least 1,000 U.S. public companies received a letter earlier this year from the Shareholder-Director Exchange (SDX) asking boards to consider formally adopting a policy for shareholder-director engagement.5 The SDX also adopted the SDX Protocol, which provides guidance for public company boards and shareholders when developing an engagement practice or policy. Whether or not your company received this letter, director engagement is important to investors. According to a recent survey, 66 percent of directors communicated with institutional investors this past year and 29 percent reported that their board interacted with activists this past year.6

This post was excerpted from our annual Top 10 Topics for Directors in 2015 alert. To read the full alert, please click here.


1 Ronald Orol and Paula Schaap, “Tracking the Risks and Rewards of Activist Campaigns,” The Deal Pipeline (Oct. 17, 2014).

2 Juliet Chung and David Benoit, “Activist Investors Build Up Their War Chests,” The Wall Street Journal (Sept. 11, 2014).

3 Id.

4 Joseph Cyriac, Ruth De Backer and Justin Sanders, “Preparing for Bigger, Bolder Shareholder Activists,” McKinsey & Company (March 2014).

5 See The Shareholder-Director Exchange letter dated July 2, 2014, located at http://www.sdxprotocol.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/SDX_Investor-Letter.pdf. The SDX Working Group includes representatives from some of the world’s largest institutional investors, which, collectively, manage over $10 trillion in assets.

6 PwC’s 2014 Annual Corporate Directors Survey, at p. 25, 45.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.