
0:00
47:41
Trade Wire
Top Stories:
59 Filings since October 1st
The headlines
Skydance CEO David Ellison is scared to do the job himself: steals Ynon Kreiz from Mattel and names him co-CEO; David Ellison will continue as Chair.
And then, Skydance Adds Bobby Kotick and Laurene Powell Jobs to Board, Taps Tony Blair as Adviser
Before I get to Bobby, Laurene Powell Jobs is the widow of Apple’s Steve Jobs and Tony Blair is the former UK prime minister: both seem to represent channels to power and a slightly liberal-bent, possibly to counterattack the perception that this is a MAGA-friendly company?
Now Bobby: After presiding over a toxic workplace scandal at Activision Blizzard, Bobby Kotick faced explosive revelations that he personally shielded accused abusers, concealed sexual assault allegations, and threatened an assistant's life. Instead of being fired, he walked away with a golden parachute worth over $400M when Microsoft absorbed the embattled publisher in a $69 billion buyout.
And in case you’re wondering, people like Bobby Kotick represent actual risk; here’s a summary of legal action against Activision/Bobby:
The California Civil Rights Department sued over a pervasive "frat boy" culture marked by constant sexual harassment, unequal pay, and retaliation against female employees. Activision settled in December 2023 for $54 million, sending roughly $46 million directly to female workers.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission targeted widespread sexual harassment and pregnancy discrimination across Activision Blizzard’s gaming studios. The company settled via a consent decree in 2022, creating an $18 million compensation fund for impacted workers.
The SEC charged leadership with failing to track workplace misconduct complaints and using restrictive separation agreements that muzzled potential whistleblowers. Activision settled in early 2023 by paying a $35 million civil penalty without admitting wrongdoing.
The family of a 32-year-old Blizzard finance manager sued, alleging severe workplace sexual harassment drove her to suicide during a 2017 company retreat. The family voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice in 2022 and the case resulted in a confidential out-of-court settlement.
And finally the Microsoft "Fire-Sale" Shareholder Lawsuit: Swedish pension funds and investors claimed Kotick rushed a discounted $69 billion buyout to Microsoft at $95 per share to secure a massive golden parachute and dodge personal liability. The case settled in 2026 for $250 million, split between Microsoft and board insurers to compensate qualifying shareholders.
Stupid money…
Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino received several new equity retention grants to keep him interested in being a CEO: Here’s the easiest way to explain this: He used to get an annual $10M long-term equity grant, starting in 2027 he will get 1) $10M in annual performance shares, 2) $15M in annual time-based RSUs, 3) $15M in annual PSUs, and then as a cherry on the top: $20M in upfront RSUs.
New Pinterest CFO James Dibbo is getting a golden hello award worth $32M in equity.
The previous CFO, Julia Brau Donnelly, served for only 3 years.
3 Pinterest board members have experience as CFO.
Here’s a new term: golden handcuffs. Four Skydance named executive officers (including nepobaby David) are set to haul in an additional $50M in annual bonus compensation.
Board to C-Suite
The leadership boondoggle:
COO Spencer S. Stiles is being promoted to CEO and director at Stryker, while former CEO Kevin Lobo will transition to Executive Chair
At General Dynamics, President and board member Danny Deep will succeed Phebe Novakovic as CEO, with Novakovic transitioning to Executive Chair
Down to 2F
Overall: 44 director changes: 25% incoming directors are women; 35% outgoing are women
PROXY CAGE MATCH
Six Flags: Jana Partners wants a sale and a board shake-up, leveraging the star power of Mr. Taylor Swift. A recent rollercoaster death will make this easier or harder?
Sanderson Design Group: Activist fund LBV (14% stake) is hammering Sanderson over high pay and low performance. Sanderson director Patrick Lewis has retaliated, threatening to sue LBV's founder for defamation over the campaign's aggressive claims.
Ethan Allen: DGB Investments (5% stake) is pushing to blow up the board completely. As a bargaining chip, the activist is offering longtime CEO/Chair Farooq Kathwari a participation trophy in the form of the title Chair Emeritus.
Whitbread: Corvex Management (7%) is demanding board representation and a strategic overhaul to fix an alleged "chronic misallocation of capital" at the Premier Inn parent. Whitbread called Corvex’s proposals a “complete waste” of time and money and “a complete waste of company – and shareholder – resources.”
PepsiCo: Elliott Investment Management is targeting Doritos and Cheetos and blaming Ozempic!
VOTE RESULTS TABLE
Since September 1st
18 meetings at large market caps
10 total SHPs from 5 companies:
Top story
At Darden Restaurants: The Accountability Board is my new hero!
They asked for a policy providing that if any director fails to receive at least 80% of the votes cast in an uncontested election, the Board’s independent directors will conduct a formal review of the circumstances underlying such vote, and publicly disclose a summary of findings and any responsive actions taken.
Sadly only 3% said yes
1 Victory
a policy requiring shareholder approval before distributing “blank-check” preferred stock 63% yes at General Mills
The Accountability Board!
Near wins
independent board chair 39% yes at FedEx
special meeting rights 39% yes at Casey’s General Stores
Hate
Bowyer Research hates the Human Rights Report!
At Nike, a Charitable Support Report 0.7% yes
Most:
FedEx 3; General Mills 3
Other
Say on Pay
32% no Nike
Directors
At Nike, 3 Class B directors were up for vote: Monica Gil and Robert Swan received well over 90% support but not Thasunda Duckett, who got 38% no votes. What makes her so different?
All served for under a decade
Robert Swan has been an Operating Partner at Andreessen Horowitz and sits on 2 other boards
Monica Gil is a member of the Pay COmmittee: Say on Pay 32% no
Thasunda? CEO of TIAA (Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America), no other boards, black woman??
The only other director over 20% no is a woman named Dolores Ennico (23%) from a classified board election at RBC Bearings
Why Dolores? Maybe because she used to be the Chief Human Resources Officer of Olin Corporation? Nah. Oh, she’s too old! She’s 73.
The other director up for vote was CEO/Chairman Dr. Michael J. Hartnett. He got 97% yes. He’s 81 years old.
Overall average support was high 90s
Other stuff
Upcoming Annual Shareholder Meetings
THE BIG VOTE
The SEC is a Joke Part 1: Protect the oil
The greatest gaslight of an “investigation” ever, as summarized by Paul “Oil Slurpee” Atkins himself:
“The investigation considered evidence as to whether investors and asset managers, including BlackRock, Inc. (“BlackRock”), State Street Corporation (“State Street”) and The Vanguard Group (“Vanguard”) joined a group of ExxonMobil investors, including after BlackRock and State Street became members of CA100. This evidence included BlackRock and State Street, after becoming members of CA100, engaging in certain communications regarding ExxonMobil with Ceres, a Boston-based non-profit that serves as the North American investor network supporting CA100 (as explained below).The evidence also suggested CA100 and its members pressured BlackRock and State Street to support CA100 ̶flagged matters submitted to a shareholder vote, including the May 2021 election of dissident directors to ExxonMobil’s board.”
Summary: Blackrock, State Street, Vanguard form a “group” for the purposes of activism coordinated by the Climate Action 100+ and pressured by non profit Ceres - to put directors on Exxon’s board - that’s the investigation - the SEC on behalf of Exxon wants to know if they formed a group and should have been subject to massive amounts of 13D filings and not considered passive investors
On the other hand, Vanguard never became a member of CA100, and the investigation did not develop evidence that BlackRock or State Street agreed to vote proxies in certain manners or shared their proxy voting intentions with investors or others associated with CA100.
In the next line, Atkins literally admits that NO, Vanguard never joined (but voted for dissidents) and there was NO EVIDENCE that Blackrock and State Street agreed to vote a certain way (or even discussed it)
While most attorneys would stop there, not this asshole…
Atkins uses the rest of the document, after finding no evidence of anything, to tell investors NOT to join groups like Climate Action 100+ because he’ll consider you part of a group ANYWAY, saying the ACT of joining any “signing statements” doesn’t shield you from the SEC determining, even if you “didn’t technically form a legal group”, they will use “implied” and “circumstantial evidence” to say you did
Atkins focuses a LOT on Climate Action 100+ and Ceres, who try desperately to get investors to DO something, but investors largely commit to nothing at all
Vanguard doesn’t even join but Atkins just lets that slide, ignoring the fact entirely as inconvenient to the narrative that a pair of dopey non-profits pressured multi trillion dollar asset managers to do something
Atkins cites internal Ceres documents they subpoenaed where idiots at Ceres, a NON PROFIT who loves to talk big about winning and has won virtually nothing but funding, sends an email to a donor talking about how Blackrock joining the CA100 was mostly because they’re so good at pressuring them and had “leverage”
Except that: “The minutes also detail discussion between BlackRock and Ceres regarding the ExxonMobil board refresh campaign: “Talked about scoping good board candidates for Exxon campaign – [BlackRock] said there was ‘no chance that they would ever help us with that’.”
Then Engine No 1, a not-climate-activist climate activist used CA100 and Ceres to market for them to get in the room with Blackrock, having secured 6 phone calls in 2 years and a bunch of emails
Apparently none of those exchanges were subpoenaed or they weren’t helpful to the cause, because they don’t appear in the “investigation” - and they should constitute the entirety of reasoning for why these directors were chosen:
Greg Goff - CEO of oil companies (elected)
Kaisa Hietala - worked on renewables… at an oil company (elected)
Alex Karsner - google, energy efficiency government guy (elected)
Anders Runevard - wind manufacturer (not elected)
Two oil execs and a government guy elected
Incumbent Doug Oberhelman (ex CEO at Caterpillar), unseated
Less qualified than the new directors!
Incumbent Sam Palmisano (ex CEO of IBM), unseated
Uh, what??
Nominee Wan Zulkiflee (ex CEO of Malaysian oil company, appointed March and voted out in June) lost
The SEC is a Joke Part 2: Protect the mediocre
The Value of Corporate Ballot Access
Florian Berg, Bram van der Kroft, Juan Palacios, Roberto Girobon, Siqi Zheng
Oct 13, 2026
Let’s pretend we’re in a pre-Paul Atkins world, where everyone is happily filing shareholder proposals, both governance, ESG, and anti-ESG, and the SEC is a competent place full of smart or earnest lawyers weeding out proposals that are legally frivolous
Bram’s paper focuses on specific lawyers at the SEC - or more accurately, focuses on proposals that are weeded OUT by some lawyers (strict ones) and let go to ballot by others (lenient ones)
He actually focuses on lawyer names and uses their track records to predict how they’ll decide future proposals - it’s right in our wheelhouse, paying attention not to the SUBSTANCE of the proposal, but the PERSON who decides whether it should go to ballot
I already love this (audio clip 05)
These are “margin” cases - “margin of shareholder control rights” - like borderline cases
Here’s his finding: (audio clip 06 ) - a borderline proposal that one attorney would kill but another would allow, when it gets allowed, REDUCES firm value by 1.19% and lasts a long time
But that’s not all - when he looks at the topic of the proposals, it’s ENTIRELY driven by environmental and social proposals, which LOSE firm value worth 2.56%
Basically, when investors intervene is expensive to the firms - those environmental activists WERE hurting Exxon!
But there’s a great subplot - when management is entrenched - protected by dual class or classified board nonsense - there is no damage to firm value
Like investors recognize it doesn’t matter OR they already PRICE IN the fact that the firm sucks at something
When management is NOT entrenched - vulnerable, fireable CEOs - and they LOSE the battle to get something on the ballot, I read this as investors CONFIRMING that the CEO is vulnerable and doing a mediocre or BAD job and reprice accordingly
The price effect lasts as long as 24 months and is adjusted for market return - so this is long term damage as long as the CEO hangs around
So Atkins killing shareholder proposals does two things: 1. Atkins does, in fact, reduce damage to share price for margin cases by politicizing the SEC and blocking everything E and S, and 2. Atkins actually ARTIFICIALLY INFLATES share price for bad CEOs by block E and S proposals that are on the margin, showing the market a happy face when the CEOs actually face real risks
Bram warns that rescinding 14a-8 has implications that go beyond share price though (audio clip 07)
Basically, managers are now incentivized to kill proposals that tell you something AND investors actually DO care about E and S proposals, even when they don’t vote for them - so you’re losing a signal of investor preference
Altri episodi di "PROXY COUNTDOWN"



Non perdere nemmeno un episodio di “PROXY COUNTDOWN”. Iscriviti all'app gratuita GetPodcast.








