“Australia has a particularly permissive corporate governance framework. Domestic institutions have shown themselves willing to back an increasing amount of well-planned activist campaigns being led by both overseas activists and an emerging group of smaller domestic activists, but activity is yet to reach the levels that would seem possible under the permissive regime.”

Shane Murphy, Senior Director

Country:
Australia

Country: Australia

Average % of insider ownership:

2.81
Activism Threat Level: 9

To learn more about this country, please click on the tabs below


Australia is the third most common target of shareholder activists after the United States and Canada. The Australian legal framework is considered to be fairly favorable to activists and provides for similar activist strategies as those seen in the United States. Additionally, the consistent growth and low-risk environment create an ideal space for activists.

Shareholders reaching or exceeding a 5 percent threshold and each whole percentage point after that must disclose their voting interests.

5 percent or more of voting rights give shareholders power to request directors to call a general meeting (and the directors must do so), call and arrange to hold a general meeting, give a company notice of a resolution they propose to move, and give the company a statement to be distributed to all members.

Australian corporate governance also includes two strikes rules which provide members a right to vote to spill the board if 25 percent or more of the votes cast at an AGM are against adopting the company's remuneration report for two successive years.

While shareholders have rights to propose resolutions, the board does not need to put resolutions forward that concern management matters, unless specifically allowed for in the company’s constitution. Activists, therefore, need to frame a resolution as an amendment to the company's constitution to enable a binding vote on a management matter.

The Corporations Act states that certain kinds of collective action by shareholders (e.g. formulating joint proposals or agreeing to vote in a certain way) may be deemed to be “associated” by acting in concert.

Although poison pills are not permitted, a change of control provision in an appropriately drafted loan agreement (poison pill loan) can have a similar effect of discouraging hostile takeovers or shareholder activism.


Top Campaigns by Type

1. Removal of CEO or other Board member
2. Gain Board Representation
3. Amend Bylaw

Campaigns By Year

Total
Campaigns

252

Notable Invested Activists

Sandon Capital
Allan Gray (formerly Orbis Investment Management)
Stephen Mayne

Recent activism campaigns

Oil Basins Limited
VS.
Rocket Science Pty Ltd (Troy John Harry)
Fairfax Media Limited
VS.
Thorney Opportunities
Fortress Investment Group
VS.
Ainsworth Game Technology

Total Active
Campaigns

26

Contact FTI Consulting

Geoff Serednesky

Capital Markets Research and Activist Engagement
Managing Director
+1 312 861 4721
Geoff.Serednesky@FTIConsulting.com

Shane Murphy

Senior Director
+61 8 9485 8804
Shane.Murphy@FTIConsulting.com

Jon Snowball

Senior Director
+61 2 8298 6111
Jon.Snowball@fticonsulting.com