Advertisement 1

How the dissidents got their way at Granite REIT after a bruising proxy battle

Barry Critchley: Just as in politics where the will of the people must prevail, the will of the shareholders must also be determined in a contested proxy battle

Article content

The bruising proxy battle at Granite REIT ended rather meekly Wednesday with a release indicating three incumbent trustees and directors would not be standing for re-election. Instead, those three are being replaced by nominees of the dissidents, FrontFour Capital and Sandpiper Group.

But getting to the stage where the dissidents were elected required a myriad of behind the scenes activities that, in total, represent shareholder democracy in action.

Advertisement 2
Story continues below
Article content

And just as in politics where the will of the people must prevail, the will of the shareholders must also be determined in a contested proxy battle, a process that involves financial advisers, proxy advisory firms and transfer agents.

Article content

But it’s a bit of a jungle. “Service providers are doing the best job they can in a system that doesn’t work very well,” said a report by Davis Ward Phillips Vineberg in 2010. It’s not clear how much improvement has been made since then.

On the Granite battle, Trimaven Capital Advisors, Norton Rose Fulbright and Kingsdale Advisors acted for the dissidents, while BMO Capital Markets, Blake Cassels & Graydon, and D.F. King acted for Granite. Computershare was the transfer agent and Broadridge Financial Solutions managed the voting process.

Recommended from Editorial
  1. Institutional Shareholder Services recommended shareholders vote for the three nominees put forth by FrontFour and its partner, Vancouver-based Sandpiper Group, at Granite's annual general meeting on June 15.
    Shakeup on Granite REIT board as chair and two other directors out, dissident nominees in
  2. Toronto's financial district
    RBC’s Neil Downey gives his take on the ‘significant transition’ on Granite REIT ’s board

With great simplification, here’s the plumbing at work.

It starts when management issues a circular and a proxy form; the dissidents then release their documents. Granite issued its material in mid-May.

Article content
Advertisement 3
Story continues below
Article content

The proxy forms come in different colors: those supporting management complete the white form; those supporting the dissidents complete a blue form. And the information on the two is different — management only listed its eight nominees; while the dissidents used a four-page universal proxy to list its three nominees plus the eight put forward by Granite. For each of the 11 nominees the choice was either for or withhold. Shareholders can vote for up to eight directors and trustees.

In making their decision, shareholders can use email, fax or mail. And there were two cut-off dates: June 12 for the dissidents and June 13 for the management slate. (One reason for that is the dissidents are required to deliver their proxies to the transfer agent on June 13.)

It’s understood about 60 per cent of the outstanding units were voted on the blue dissident form — though not all would have been cast in favor of the dissidents. Hence, it couldn’t be said, at that time, that the dissidents were winning as only Granite has perfect information.

“But we felt highly confident of our three given the support we had received and the historical voting at past annual meetings,” noted Amy Freedman chief executive at Kingsdale Advisors. At its 2016 annual meeting, about 80 per cent of the 47 million units outstanding were voted.

Advertisement 4
Story continues below
Article content

Freedman termed the fight “an epic battle,” based on the perceived quality of the directors, and the performance of the company. “We had a well thought-out strategy, we didn’t ask for control but a significant presence and made a very nuanced argument,” she said noting support from advisory firms, ISS and Glass Lewis was “significant,” given the link between their recommendations and institutional voting. “But we question some of the shareholder advice that Granite was given along the way.”

But before victory could be declared, management unveiled its support. Under the rules it’s allowed to try and convince those who didn’t vote for its slate to change their mind. Presumably support for three of its eight wasn’t enough to make that effort worthwhile.

After the meeting Granite said the eight were elected by show of hands but didn’t disclose the actual votes for the elected directors.

Financial Post
bcritchley@postmedia.com

Article content
Comments
You must be logged in to join the discussion or read more comments.
Join the Conversation

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion. Please keep comments relevant and respectful. Comments may take up to an hour to appear on the site. You will receive an email if there is a reply to your comment, an update to a thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information.

This Week in Flyers