Investment idea generation.


Our thoughts.

Daily Activist Investing May 21: Peltz was well off in DuPont vote

Activist agitators, major activist stories and news for May 20 below - again we’re now on the 24-hour delay. Activist Strategy members get it day of production. Still taking leads at @activiststocks, daily newsletter signup still here and ICYMI the latest newsletter is here.


  • Computer Sciences Corp has pushed ahead with its split. JANA Partners is the activist there. Shares are flat 6.5% since JANA officially went active in February. The split is expected to happen in 4Q and will include a $10.50 a share dividend.

  • Private equity firms are once again looking at Pep Boys. This time it’s Golden Gate Capital, recall in 2012 there was a failed buyout attempt by The Gores Group. Mario Gabelli’s GAMCO is an activist here [more to come via Activist Strategy].

  • Sabra Capital is active at Cinedigm Corp owning 2.7% of the company and 10% of its notes. It’s pushing for an immediate and large share repurchase program to mitigate part of the dilution from the recently concluded convertible deal. It also wants the company to evaluate and pursue strategic alternatives for both its deployment and services segments [link]

  • Preliminary results are out for the shareholder vote for DuPont board members. Nelson Peltz didn’t come quite as close as one would expect. It looks like Peltz got 43% of the votes, which was below the lowest vote getter for DuPont nominees, where Bob Brown got over 55% of the votes [link]


  • @lizrhoffman at the WSJ put together a piece on boardroom battles, focused on the divergence of CalPERS and CalSTRS, which voted opposite sides in the DuPont versus Trian Partners battle. This has been a growing divergence for the two, “Since 2012, Calpers has voted against management’s recommendations in just 8% of corporate elections while Calstrs has done so 45% of the time.” Why is Calpers so shy? Key takeaway, “Choosing to align with activist investors such as William Ackman or Mr. Peltz carries reputational and political risks for any public pension fund” [link]