Forum Home Page [see Broadridge note below]

 The Shareholder ForumTM`

Fair Investor Access

This public program was initiated in collaboration with The Conference Board Task Force on Corporate/Investor Engagement and with Thomson Reuters support of communication technologies. The Forum is providing continuing reports of the issues that concern this program's participants, as summarized  in the January 5, 2015 Forum Report of Conclusions.

"Fair Access" Home Page

"Fair Access" Program Reference


Related Projects 2012-2019

For graphed analyses of company and related industry returns, see

Returns on Corporate Capital

See also analyses of

Shareholder Support Rankings



For the foundations of communication practices recommended in the memorandum below, see


Source: The Conference Board Governance Center Blog, June 10, 2013 posting

The Conference Board Governance Center Blog


Lessons from the 2013 Proxy Season

By Marty Lipton, Partner, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, Karessa Cain, Partner, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, & Sabastian V. Niles, Counsel, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz

1) Shareholder activism is growing at an increasing rate. No company is too big to become the target of an activist, and even companies with sterling corporate governance practices and positive share price performance, including outperformance of peers, may be targeted.

2) “Activist Hedge Fund” has become an asset class in which institutional investors are making substantial investments. In addition, even where institutional investors are not themselves limited partners in the activist hedge fund, several now maintain open and regular lines of communication with activists, including sharing potential “hit lists” of possible targets.

3) Major investment banks, law firms, proxy solicitors, and public relations advisors are representing activists.

4) ISS and Glass Lewis continue to play a major role in proxy solicitations and favor activists over management. They see no problem in supporting a short slate of an activist’s director candidates for the purpose of “shaking things up,” regardless of the merits of the activist’s proposals, and they ignore legitimate concerns over creating dysfunction and paralysis in the boardroom. It is a mistake to assume that they understand the basic business and long-term business strategy of a company attacked by an activist. It is necessary to make a sophisticated presentation of the company’s finances and business to have any prospect that they will reject the activist’s argument and support the company’s.

5) Major institutional investors, including BlackRock, Fidelity, State Street and Vanguard have established significant proxy departments that make decisions independent of ISS and GL and warrant careful attention. It is important for a company to know the voting policies and guidelines of its major investors, who the key decision-makers and point-persons are and how best to reach them. It is possible to mount a strong defense against an activist attack that is supported by ISS and GL and gain the support of the major institutional shareholders.

6) Active participation, including visits to ISS and major shareholders, by the lead director and the other independent directors is critical in a proxy contest.

7) The failure of a company to maintain regular contact with its institutional shareholders will result in a very significant disadvantage in a contested proxy solicitation. Early outreach can prevent institutional shareholders from mistakenly concluding that supporting activism is the only path for successful engagement with a company.

8) The investor relations officer is critical in a proxy solicitation. The regard in which the IR officer is held by the institutional shareholders has been determinative in a number of proxy solicitations. Candid IR assessment of shareholder sentiment should be appropriately communicated to senior management, with periodic briefings provided to the Board.

9) Relationships with sell-side analysts are important and should be proactively developed. A company should be on the lookout for new suggestions or ideas floated by the sell-side community. If analysts are making errors, the company should correct them and educate them about the business; ideas suggested by analysts, even ill-advised ones, can generate momentum and inspire activist approaches.

10) Media outlets tend to favor the “shareholder rights” mantra of activists. A proactive public relations campaign is important in seeking a level playing field.

11) A company should not wait until it is involved in a proxy solicitation to have its institutional shareholders meet its independent directors. A disciplined, thoughtful program for periodic meetings is advisable.

12) Scrutiny of board composition is increasing, and boards should self-assess regularly. Institutional investors frequently question the “independence” of directors who are older than 75 or who have served for more than 10 years. In addition, they may discount the independence of directors solely because they have been nominated by the company as compared to an activist’s nominees. In some situations consultation with major shareholders about potential nominees may be important.

13) Periodically, and at least shortly after each annual meeting, a company should review its portfolio, governance and preparation for defense against an activist attack in the light of potential activist perspectives and consider appropriate adjustments. Experienced advice is critical ISS and GL and institutional investors discount strategic and governance changes that are initiated after an activist has surfaced, even if there is evidence that the changes were previously “in-the-works.”


About the Guest Bloggers:

Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz

Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz

Martin Lipton and Karessa L. Cain are partners and Sabastian V. Niles is counsel with the law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

This post originally appeared as a Wachtell Lipton memo on June 10, 2013.

© 2013 The Conference Board Inc.


This Forum program was open, free of charge, to anyone concerned with investor interests in the development of marketplace standards for expanded access to information for securities valuation and shareholder voting decisions. As stated in the posted Conditions of Participation, the purpose of this public Forum's program was to provide decision-makers with access to information and a free exchange of views on the issues presented in the program's Forum Summary. Each participant was expected to make independent use of information obtained through the Forum, subject to the privacy rights of other participants.  It is a Forum rule that participants will not be identified or quoted without their explicit permission.

This Forum program was initiated in 2012 in collaboration with The Conference Board and with Thomson Reuters support of communication technologies to address issues and objectives defined by participants in the 2010 "E-Meetings" program relevant to broad public interests in marketplace practices. The website is being maintained to provide continuing reports of the issues addressed in the program, as summarized in the January 5, 2015 Forum Report of Conclusions.

Inquiries about this Forum program and requests to be included in its distribution list may be addressed to

The information provided to Forum participants is intended for their private reference, and permission has not been granted for the republishing of any copyrighted material. The material presented on this web site is the responsibility of Gary Lutin, as chairman of the Shareholder Forum.

Shareholder Forum™ is a trademark owned by The Shareholder Forum, Inc., for the programs conducted since 1999 to support investor access to decision-making information. It should be noted that we have no responsibility for the services that Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc., introduced for review in the Forum's 2010 "E-Meetings" program and has since been offering with the “Shareholder Forum” name, and we have asked Broadridge to use a different name that does not suggest our support or endorsement.