Huntsman Corporation HUN
Huntsman has missed every Investor Day target since 2014 and underperformed chemical peers by 330% since IPO; Starboard nominates four directors to force execution.
Thesis
Starboard Value, holder of an 8.6% stake in Huntsman Corporation, nominates four directors — James Gallogly, Sandra Beach Lin, Susan Schnabel and Jeffrey Smith — for the 2022 Annual Meeting to end a decade of operational underperformance. The letter documents Huntsman's repeated failure to meet its own Investor Day aspirations: the 2014 goal of $2.0 billion Adjusted EBITDA (EBITDA actually declined over $350 million), the 2016 goal of $1.7 billion by 2017 (missed save for a one-time $125 million commodity boon), and the 2018 target implying roughly $60 per share by 2020 (shares languished in the mid-$20s). Since its 2005 IPO, Huntsman has underperformed the chemical index by 330% and the S&P 500 by 337%. Starboard further accuses the Board of disenfranchising shareholders by reactively packing retiring seats, abridging the nomination window to ten days, and refusing a Universal Proxy Card — making direct shareholder representation essential.
SCQA
Huntsman Corporation is a differentiated specialty chemicals manufacturer with strong market positions, diverse product portfolios, innovative chemistries and difficult-to-replicate assets, led by Chairman and CEO Peter R. Huntsman.
Management has missed every Investor Day aspiration set in 2014, 2016 and 2018, underperformed chemical peers and the S&P 500 by over 330% since IPO, and the Board recently moved to disenfranchise shareholders by packing replacements and narrowing the nomination window.
Elect Starboard's four independent nominees — Gallogly, Lin, Schnabel and Smith — to the Huntsman Board at the 2022 Annual Meeting to inject accountability, refresh governance and ensure execution against stated financial targets.
A reconstituted Board can put Huntsman on a path to best-in-class operational performance, unlock the intrinsic value of its assets, and close the decade-long valuation discount versus peers like Celanese, Dow and Eastman.
The three reasons
- 1
A decade of missed EBITDA targets: 2014, 2016 and 2018 Investor Day aspirations all unmet
- 2
Stock has underperformed chemical index by 330% and S&P 500 by 337% since 2005 IPO
- 3
Board is disenfranchising shareholders: abridged nomination window, refused Universal Proxy Card
Primary demands
- Elect Starboard's slate of four director nominees (Gallogly, Lin, Schnabel, Smith) at the 2022 Annual Meeting
- Refresh the Board with independent, shareholder-aligned directors unburdened by past loyalties
- Adopt a Universal Proxy Card for the contested election
- Hold management accountable for chronic EBITDA under-delivery and restore credibility on financial targets
- Transform Huntsman into a best-in-class differentiated chemicals manufacturer
KPIs cited
Pattern membership
Composition what's on the 61 slides
Slide gallery ·
Notes
Schedule 13D/A (Amendment No. 1) filed as Exhibit 1 to a DFAN14A proxy solicitation. Primary argument lives in Exhibit 99.1 — a 3-page letter from Jeffrey Smith to Chairman/CEO Peter R. Huntsman dated January 12, 2022 — followed by two pages of nominee bios with headshots (Gallogly, Lin, Schnabel, Smith). Pages 1-44 are standard SEC 13D boilerplate: reporting-person tables, ownership percentages, purchase history, Schedule A forward-contract exercises, plus a Joint Filing & Solicitation Agreement (Ex. 99.2) and nominee indemnification letter (Ex. 99.3). Narrative pattern is a classic broken-promises argument — three successive Investor Days (2014 / 2016 / 2018) where aspirational EBITDA targets were missed, culminating in the 330% / 337% underperformance statistic. Governance grievances (abridged nomination window, refusal of Universal Proxy Card, reactive board refreshment) are framed as evidence the Board is actively disenfranchising shareholders. No charts, no sum-of-parts, no target price — this is the opening salvo of a proxy fight, not a valuation deck. Valuation framework coded as multiple_comparison because the letter explicitly benchmarks Huntsman's valuation discount against Celanese, Dow and Eastman, though no multiples are shown numerically. Good specimen for studying a text-only, letter-driven activist escalation.