The main difference between the two proposals is the constitution of the BoD (i.e. HES’ new nominees vs Elliott’s nominees) and the degree of business fragmentation when all is said and done.
HES’ own proposal contemplates divesting the downstream operations (including the convenience stores), the Bakken midstream assets, and all assets in Indonesia and Thailand. Elliott’s proposal would have split HES into many more pieces, including distinct companies for the Bakken, Gulf of Mexico, and foreign assets.
All told, I think HES has addressed the concerns raised by Elliott and done them one better. Comments welcome.
“The efficient-market hypothesis may be the foremost piece of B.S. ever promulgated in any area of human knowledge!”
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.