Contrarian Corpus
activist full deck proxy fight
2022-03-02 · 90 pages

Huntsman Corporation HUN

Huntsman has serially missed its own Investor Day promises while an entrenched board shields management; elect Starboard's four independent chemical-industry nominees to restore accountability.

Thesis

Starboard's supplemental deck rebuts Huntsman's February 2022 investor presentation point-by-point, arguing that CEO Peter Huntsman and an interlocked legacy board have serially misled shareholders to obscure chronic underperformance. Huntsman missed its 2016 Investor Day $1.3bn EBITDA target by 11%, failed every lever of its 2018 Investor Day plan to reach $60/share, destroyed value at the Textile Effects business (acquired in 2006 at $92M EBITDA, still only $97M sixteen years later), and fire-sold its Venator stake for $140M after promising $1bn. The board repeatedly waived its own mandatory retirement policy for 75+ directors Archibald and Burns, then rushed three under-qualified defensive appointees only after Starboard's 13D. Starboard nominates four independent chemical-industry veterans — Gallogly, Beach Lin, Schnabel, Smith — pointing to its proven turnarounds at GCP Applied Technologies and Corteva as evidence change works.

SCQA

Situation

Huntsman Corporation is a diversified specialty and intermediate chemicals maker led by CEO Peter Huntsman, with a long-tenured interlocked board heading into the 2022 annual meeting.

Complication

Management has missed every Investor Day target since 2016 — EBITDA, share price, Venator monetization, Textile Effects — then rewrote peer sets, timelines and definitions to obscure the record; the board enabled it by waiving its own retirement rules.

Resolution

Elect Starboard's four independent chemical-industry nominees — Gallogly, Beach Lin, Schnabel and Smith — to the 10-person Huntsman board at the 2022 annual meeting to install genuine accountability and oversight.

Reward

Starboard points to its GCP Applied Technologies turnaround (sold to Saint-Gobain at a 39% premium) and Corteva's 41% outperformance as the template — independent chemicals expertise on the board unlocks trapped value.

The three reasons

  1. 1

    Huntsman failed every Investor Day promise since 2016 and now rewrites history to hide it

  2. 2

    The board waived its own 75-year retirement policy three years running to entrench legacy directors

  3. 3

    Huntsman has underperformed peers and the S&P 500 across nearly every time period since IPO

Primary demands

  • Elect Starboard's four independent director nominees (James L. Gallogly, Sandra Beach Lin, Susan C. Schnabel, Jeffrey C. Smith) at the 2022 Annual Meeting
  • Refresh the entrenched legacy board including long-tenured directors whose mandatory retirement was repeatedly waived
  • Hold management accountable for serial failures to deliver on Investor Day promises
  • Align executive pay with performance rather than top-quartile pay for bottom-quartile EVA

KPIs cited

2017 Adjusted EBITDA vs. 2016 Investor Day target
$1,134M actual vs. $1,272M pro-forma target — missed by 11%
2018 Investor Day $60/share goal by 2020
All four value-creation levers (EBITDA growth, Venator monetization, FCF, multiple re-rating) FAILED
Textile Effects Adjusted EBITDA trajectory
$92M at 2006 acquisition; promised $150M by 2008; only $97M in 2021 — 16 years of no value creation
Venator monetization proceeds
Promised ~$1bn at 2018 Investor Day; realized only ~$140M in 2020 'fire sale' — $860M shortfall
TSR vs. Primary Peers (since IPO)
Huntsman 80% vs. Primary Peers 822% — underperformed by 742 percentage points
TSR vs. S&P 500 (since IPO)
Huntsman 80% vs. S&P 500 417% — underperformed by 337 percentage points
CEO pay vs. performance (ISS report)
Top-quartile executive pay with bottom-quartile EVA margin and EVA momentum ranking
Board refreshment 2018-2021
Zero legacy directors refreshed; new directors added only by expanding board size
Mandatory retirement policy waivers
Waived for Archibald (78) and Burns (79) in 2019, 2020, and 2021 annual meetings

Pattern membership

Where this document fits across the library's 12 rhetorical / structural patterns. Orange cells are present in this deck; neutral cells are not.

Precedents cited

  • GCP Applied Technologies (Starboard won majority slate 2020; company sold to Saint-Gobain at 39% premium)
  • Corteva (Starboard campaign — 41% outperformance vs. S&P 500 post-engagement)

Composition what's on the 88 slides

Visual + textual elements counted across every slide in this deck. Hover a box for what that element is; click to see every slide in the corpus that uses it.

Slide gallery ·

All 88
No slide inventory yet

Pass-2 extraction may still be in progress for this deck.

Notes

Supplemental deck explicitly framed as companion to Starboard's Feb 28, 2022 investor presentation — specifically a rebuttal to Huntsman management's counter-presentation. Signature rhetorical device is the two-column 'Highly Misleading Claims' vs. 'Reality' grid (p.4), repeated throughout as 'The Truth' vs. 'Huntsman's Misleading Tactics' closers after each section — deliberate drumbeat to frame management as dishonest. Heavy reliance on CEO-quote-contradiction: Peter Huntsman's own words from 2006, 2013, 2017, 2018 pulled verbatim to expose broken promises on Textile Effects EBITDA and Venator monetization. An unusual section (6: 'Starboard's Past Investments') is self-defense responding to Huntsman's attacks on Starboard's GCP record — rare for an activist to devote this much space to defending its own track record. No stake percentage disclosed here (the 13D was filed Sept 27, 2021 and referenced but pct not repeated). No explicit target price or upside quantification — thesis is governance-focused rather than valuation-driven. Four nominees: James L. Gallogly (ex-LyondellBasell CEO), Sandra Beach Lin (ex-Celanese EVP), Susan C. Schnabel (aPriori Capital), Jeffrey C. Smith (Starboard).