IBJNews

Lilly takeover provision to be voted on again

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A proposal that would make it easier for Eli Lilly and Co. to be purchased in an unwanted takeover will be voted on again by shareholders at the company’s annual meeting.

The effort to remove an 80-percent approval threshold for takeover bids against the wishes of Lilly’s board is on the agenda of the April 18 meeting, according to a proxy statement filed Feb. 4 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The proposal failed last year after receiving approval from 74 percent of shareholders owning Lilly stock. To pass, it needed the support of investors holding 80 percent of all of Lilly’s outstanding shares.

The supermajority vote requirement, which has been in place for more than 25 years, applies not only to outright takeover bids, but also to measures used to achieve them, such as removing directors before their terms end or expanding the size of the board.

If the proposal passes, it would require a bare majority of votes to approve such actions in the future.

“Many shareholders believe that supermajority voting provisions impede accountability to shareholders and contribute to board and management entrenchment,” Lilly said in its proxy. “If the board were to oppose eliminating the supermajority vote, there is a risk that those shareholders would lose confidence in the company’s governance and its board, which could threaten the company’s leadership stability and ability to carry out its long-term strategies for growth and success.”

Les Funtleyder, a portfolio manager of a health care mutual fund at Miller Tabak & Co. in New York, is uncertain whether the measure will pass this year. But, he said, the proposal likely would be a non-issue if Lilly’s stock were performing better.

Shares opened Friday morning at $35.62 each and haven’t steadily traded above $40 since 2008.

“Shareholders usually change the rules when they’re not happy with the share price,” he said. “And Lilly’s stock price hasn’t been that great.”

Even so, Funtleyder doesn’t consider Lilly a near-term acquisition target, simply because there aren’t many rivals financially stable enough to complete a deal.

“The problem is, there are only a small handful of companies in the position to acquire Lilly,” he said, “and they’re not doing that well, either.”

Investors typically favor low barriers to hostile takeovers because an acquiring company almost always pays a premium price to entice shareholders to approve such mergers.

Lilly’s board, which has been fiercely independent during multiple waves of consolidation in the pharmaceutical industry, changed to support the measure because of its popularity among shareholders.

Last year’s vote was hindered by the fact that holders of nearly 15 percent of shares did not vote on the measure.
 
This will be the fifth consecutive year the proposal has been made at Lilly’s shareholders meeting. But it is just the second year the measure has been supported by Lilly’s board.

That support clearly made a difference last year. The proposal had received no higher than 57 percent support in previous years.

“While it is important to maintain appropriate defenses against inadequate takeover bids, it is also important for the board to maintain shareholder confidence by demonstrating that it is responsive and accountable to shareholders and committed to strong corporate governance,” Lilly said in the proxy.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Anything to increase the stock
    While I prefer Lilly yo stay independent. I will take any offer to raise the price of the stock.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I still don't understand how the FBI had any right whatsoever to investigate this elderly collector. Before the Antiquities Act it was completely legal to buy, trade or collect Native American artifacts. I used to see arrow heads, axes, bowls, corn grinders at antique shops and flea markets for sale and I bought them myself. But that was in the late 60's and early 70's. And I now know that people used to steal items from sites and sell them. I understand that is illegal. But we used to find arrow heads and even a corn grinder in our back yard when I was a child. And I still have those items today in my small collection.

  2. I lived in California and they had many of the things noted in the proposed suggestions from the "Blue Ribbon Panel". California is near financial collapse now. Let's not turn the great state of Indiana into a third world dump like California.

  3. The temporary closure of BR Avenue will get a lot of attention. But, one thing reported by the IndyStar really stands out to me, and is extraordinarily depressing: “Police also have agreed to crack down on noise violations, traffic violations and public intoxication.” In other words, the police have generously agreed to do their jobs (temporarily, at least), instead of just standing around waiting for someone to call 911. When is someone in this department going to get off their fat arse (looking at you, Chief), get their minds out of 1975-era policing and into 2014, and have his department engage in pro-active work instead of sitting around waiting for someone to be shot? Why in the hell does it take 7 people getting shot in one night in one of the city’s biggest tourist destinations, to convince the police (reluctantly, it would appear) that they actually need to do their f’n jobs? When is the Chief going to realize that there’s a huge, direct, proven correlation between enforcing the law (yes, all laws, especially those affecting quality of life) and preventing larger crimes from occurring? Is it racial BS? Is that what this extraordinary reluctance is all about? Is the department and the city terrified that if they do their jobs, they might offend someone? Whom, exactly? Will the victims of violence, murder, assault, rape, robbery, and theft be offended? Will the citizens who have to tolerate their deteriorating quality of life be offended? Will the businesses who see their customers flee be offended? Or, is it simple ignorance (maybe the Chief hasn’t heard about NYC’s success in fighting crime - it’s only the biggest g*&#am city in the country, after all)? Either way, Chief, if you don’t want to do your job, then step down. Let someone who actually wants the job take it.

  4. I thought Indiana had all the funding it needed for everything. That's why the state lottery and casino gambling were allowed, as the new tax revenue would take care of everything the state wanted to do.The recommendations sound like they came from California. Better think about that. What is the financial condition of that state?

  5. I was a fan of WIBC in the morning, Steve was the only WIBC host that I listened too, he gave the news with so much flare that I enjoyed listening to him on my way to work. Katz is no Steve. Sadly, I will not be listening to WIBC anymore.

ADVERTISEMENT