Encouraging Dell’s Voluntary Compliance with Investor Rights to
Information
The letter copied
below is being sent to Dell in response to their previously
reported “four lawyer letter,”
encouraging their voluntary compliance with the company’s obligations
to provide its shareholders with same information that was made
available to the advisors they engaged to provide valuations
supporting their proposed buyout transaction.
It should be noted that it is fairly common for a company’s management
to state objections to shareholder demands for information, at least
as an initial position, but that the nature and vigor of Dell’s
response is unusual. Particularly, their lawyer’s professed confusion
about the administrative details of the “Delegate” authorization form
seems especially extreme since the Forum has been using the same form
for several years without any questions being raised, even by
companies that fought compliance,
and it is in any event something that could be easily resolved with
some good faith suggestions of modified statements.
In the context of Forum experience with demands for records as a means
of supporting investor access to information,
I am confident that we will ultimately be able to provide public
investors with the ability to make informed decisions about the
transaction proposed by Dell’s management.
GL – March 11, 2013
Gary Lutin
Chairman, The Shareholder Forum
575 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10022
Tel: 212-605-0335
Email:
gl@shareholderforum.com
[letterhead of The Shareholder Forum]
March 13, 2013
By email and postal service
Ms. Janet B. Wright
Vice President – Corporate,
Securities & Finance Counsel
Dell Inc.
One Dell Way, RR1-33
Round Rock, Texas 78682
Re:
Demands for records
Dear Ms. Wright:
Responding to the letter you sent me
last night shortly after its SEC filing, I will welcome informal
discussions with you or any of your lawyers to clarify the demand
for records so that we can proceed with a timely review of
information that investors will need to consider the proposal
presented by Dell’s management.
It is suggested that we consider the
issues you raised in three categories:
-
Administrative:
Although we have been using the same form of “Delegate”
authorization for several years without any questions about its
compatibility with the provisions of Section 220 that
accommodate the use of lawyers, accountants, financial advisors
and other professionals as agents for authorizing stockholders,
I will be glad to consider your suggested refinements of any
phrases you find confusing. It should be clear from the
statements in the power of attorney as well as in my letter that
the purpose of this process is for the Forum to report only
non-confidential information for stockholder consideration, so
that the stockholder can use the information to make investment
decisions.
-
Purposes of demand: Not
being a lawyer, I cannot address the applicability of the cases
you cite but am confident that the purposes of the demand would
be considered perfectly consistent with the plain language of
Section 220:
A proper purpose shall mean a
purpose reasonably related to such person's interest as a
stockholder.
The demand is simply for the same
information that Dell provided for its own valuation experts, and
those engaged by the special committee. If information was
relevant to those experts’ considerations of value, it must also
be relevant to the considerations of a stockholder, especially if
the stockholder is presented with a proposal based on the advice
those experts provided to the proponents.
-
Distinguishing board responsibilities from investor
responsibilities: It
should be understood, once and for all, that the Forum is not
addressing the conduct of the board or its special committee,
and that your defense of the special committee’s performance is
neither appropriate nor relevant. What concerns us is the need
for each of Dell’s stockholders to make its own independent
decisions about its own individual interest, and that is not
something that board members can or should be doing for them.
Addressing your purpose, if it is to
serve Dell’s stockholders I am confident we will be able to
resolve any confusion about the process for providing the
information they need to fairly consider the proposed transaction.
Please let me know by the end of this week how you wish to
proceed.
Sincerely yours,
/s
Gary Lutin
cc: S. Mark Hurd, Esquire
William D. Regner, Esquire
Gregory P. Williams, Esquire |
|