Contrarian Corpus
activist letter proxy fight
2022-02-10 · 5 pages

Huntsman Corporation HUN

Huntsman has chronically underperformed chemicals peers and missed three straight Investor Day targets; Starboard (8.6%) seeks four new directors to restore accountability and unlock value.

Thesis

Starboard Value, Huntsman's second-largest stockholder at approximately 8.6%, argues the chemicals company has suffered years of failed operational execution and dramatic long-term stock underperformance — lagging the S&P 500 by 298%, the S&P Chemicals Index by 310% and proxy performance peers by 575% since its 2005 IPO. Management has missed three consecutive Investor Day Adjusted EBITDA targets by 44%, 11% and 30%, yet the Board has paid the CEO 8-73% above the proxy peer median across FY2016-FY2020. To restore accountability, Starboard is running a proxy contest to elect four highly-qualified independent directors at the 2022 Annual Meeting: James L. Gallogly (former LyondellBasell CEO), Sandra Beach Lin (former Celanese EVP), Susan C. Schnabel (aPriori Capital) and Jeffrey C. Smith (Starboard CEO). Stockholders are urged to vote the BLUE proxy card to demand operational excellence and maximize long-term value.

SCQA

Situation

Huntsman is a diversified U.S. chemicals company with strong market positions, differentiated chemistries and a hard-to-replicate manufacturing footprint whose operating performance has dramatically understated the intrinsic value of its assets.

Complication

Huntsman has underperformed the S&P 500, S&P Chemicals and proxy peers since IPO, missed three consecutive Investor Day EBITDA targets by 44%/11%/30%, while the Board still overpaid the CEO relative to peers every year.

Resolution

Starboard, Huntsman's second-largest stockholder at 8.6%, asks fellow stockholders to vote the BLUE proxy card to elect its four independent nominees — Gallogly, Beach Lin, Schnabel and Smith — at the 2022 Annual Meeting.

Reward

A refreshed Board with seasoned chemicals and finance expertise will enforce accountability, demand operational excellence, close the peer performance gap and drive significant long-term value creation for all Huntsman stockholders.

The three reasons

  1. 1

    Huntsman has underperformed proxy peers by 575% since its IPO

  2. 2

    Management missed Investor Day EBITDA targets three times in a row (44%, 11%, 30% misses)

  3. 3

    Board overpaid the CEO vs. peer median every year FY2016-FY2020 despite failed performance

Primary demands

  • Elect Starboard's four independent director nominees (James L. Gallogly, Sandra Beach Lin, Susan C. Schnabel, Jeffrey C. Smith) to the Huntsman Board at the 2022 Annual Meeting
  • Hold management accountable for years of failed operational execution and broken Investor Day commitments
  • Rein in CEO compensation that has consistently exceeded the proxy peer median despite underperformance
  • Vote the BLUE proxy card

KPIs cited

Relative stock performance since IPO vs. S&P 500
Huntsman underperformed by 298% (Feb 2005 - Jan 2022, dividend-adjusted)
Relative stock performance since IPO vs. S&P Chemicals
Huntsman underperformed by 310%
Relative stock performance since IPO vs. Proxy Performance Peers
Huntsman underperformed by 575%
2014 Investor Day Adj. EBITDA target vs. 2016 actual
$2.0B target vs. $1.1B actual — 44% miss
2016 Investor Day Adj. EBITDA target vs. 2017 Core actual
$1.3B target vs. $1.1B actual — 11% miss
2018 Investor Day Adj. EBITDA target vs. 2020 consensus
$1.3B target vs. $0.9B consensus — 30% miss
CEO compensation vs. proxy peer median FY2016
$14.5M vs. $11.7M — 24% above median
CEO compensation vs. proxy peer median FY2017
$16.6M vs. $12.4M — 34% above median
CEO compensation vs. proxy peer median FY2018
$13.0M vs. $10.8M — 20% above median
CEO compensation vs. proxy peer median FY2019
$16.1M vs. $9.3M — 73% above median
CEO compensation vs. proxy peer median FY2020
$13.1M vs. $12.2M — 8% above median
Starboard ownership stake in Huntsman
~8.6% of common stock; second-largest stockholder
Starboard AUM
approximately $8.5 billion under management
Starboard board-refreshment track record
added or replaced 281 corporate directors on 80 boards over 18 years

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.

Composition what's on the 5 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.

Chart types used in this deck

Slide gallery ·

No slide inventory yet

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

Notes

Short proxy-fight letter (5 pages) accompanying Starboard's definitive proxy materials for the 2022 Huntsman annual meeting; signed by Jeffrey C. Smith. Classic three-part attack structure: (1) stock underperformance vs. peers since IPO, (2) three consecutive missed Investor Day financial promises, (3) CEO pay well above peer median despite misses. Signature rhetorical device is the 'Failed Investor Day Promises' chart (p.3) pairing red target bars with navy actual bars and red dashed 'X% MISS' callouts — a reusable 'broken promises' template. Villain is institutional (the Board and 'management') rather than a named executive — Starboard avoids naming CEO Peter Huntsman directly in the body text (only 'Huntsman CEO' appears as a chart legend label). 'Broken promises' framing on quantitative Investor Day targets functions similarly to CEO-quote-contradiction but uses targets, not verbatim quotes, so that flag is false. No explicit target price or upside %; case is qualitative/governance-driven. Closing ask is the BLUE proxy card; shareholdersforhuntsman.com cited as proxy materials hub.