Company shareholders are increasingly wielding their weight to drive corporate change. The growth of shareholder activism is an emerging area of legal complexity and — for some firms — opportunity.
Shareholder activists are now regularly targeting companies they believe to be underperforming or poorly managed. After acquiring substantial shareholdings in those companies, they leverage their ownership position to replace board members, install new leadership or even alter the strategic direction of the business.
While activists pursue interventions with the stated aim of improving performance, they are understandably seen as a threat by established boards. This explains why, for many years, representing activist shareholders was considered a risky proposition.
Larger law firms were reluctant to take on such work, fearing it would damage their relationships with the very boards and executives they served in other capacities. Only a minority of firms were willing to represent activists, leaving it as a niche and somewhat controversial area of practice.
In parallel with this shift in the legal market, case law is also evolving. Notably, the shareholder principle was rejected in a landmark case this year, potentially allowing companies to withhold privileged documents from shareholders.