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


The article below was referenced in

May 21, 2014 Forum Report

Questions About Shareholder-Hosted Meetings of Shareholders



Source: The Activist Investor Blog, May 15, 2014 posting


The Activist Investor Blog


A Shareholder "Get Together"


Thursday, May 15, 2014

Leave it to Bill Ackman to innovate further in activist investing.

The Allergan-Valeant-Pershing Square (PS) situation already started differently. A creative, driven pharma teams up with an aggressive activist investor to acquire a complacent competitor. No one saw that coming.

Valeant and PS have now lobbed another grenade. This week, PS proposed to Allergan shareholders that they attend a “meeting” of sorts (in person or by proxy) solely to vote on whether Allergan should negotiate with Valeant on a deal. This is not your usual vote, or meeting.

The Vote

PS calls it a "precatory" "shareholder referendum", in which shareholders vote on a resolution urging Allergan to negotiate with Valeant. Approval of the resolution would not obligate Allergan to do anything. In the same way that PS intends to solicit proxies in favor of the resolution, they invite Allergan to solicit proxies that (presumably) oppose it. And, it's not clear what constitutes "approval" of the resolution, either - we guess winning a majority of the votes cast at the meeting.

The resolution is similar to some other new ones we've seen lately, specifically the ones that Carl Icahn floated at eBay, and that Starboard proposed at Darden. What's different is the meeting.

The Meeting

PS will convene a "meeting of the shareholders". This is emphatically not a special shareholder meeting allowed under Allergan bylaws. It rather looks like a nice little get-together specifically to express investor views on the proposed Valeant deal. But, why?

It seems that if PS and Valeant want to rally Allergan shareholders to their case, then they don't have much choice. At the annual meeting earlier this month, Allergan shareholders signaled solid support - they:


elected all directors but one with around 90% of the votes (the lead independent director received two-thirds)

approved exec comp with almost 95% of the votes

approved a company proposal to allow action by written consent, but only by a narrow margin.

We speculate that the written consent proposal, which at other companies wins handily, probably lost votes because Allergan proposed a very narrow form.

How about a special meeting? Starboard did this, for its resolution at Darden. At Allergan, it takes 25% of the outstanding shares to call one. PS and Valeant would need to solicit proxies, which could add months to the process. We wonder if shareholders would agree to convene a special meeting so soon after the annual meeting, just to consider a non-binding resolution.

And, Allergan does not now allow shareholder action by written consent. Yes, shareholders approved a bylaw amendment to allow consent solicitations. But, procedural matters in implementing the new bylaw, and the restrictive nature of the particular version of written consent that shareholders approved, mean that Valeant and PS could not realistically solicit written consent in any sort of timely manner.

The Implications

We wonder where this will go. Will Allergan shareholders take this vote seriously? As a non-binding proposal, shareholders may just ignore it, they way they ignore many other similar proposals.

Alternatively, how will this vote differ from some sort of an opinion poll of investors? In other polls we’ve seen, investors (and many other survey subjects) often favor proposals that they would otherwise oppose if the vote really counted.

Valeant and PS need to send a signal that Allergan shareholders want this deal. In the absence of any other recent vote that went strongly against management, and seeing as they have no other upcoming opportunity to solicit real votes on an enforceable decision, this might be their best option. And as options go, it’s pretty interesting.


Copyright 2008-2014 Michael R. Levin - all rights reserved.


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.