Highlights of the presentation include:
Marcato said its presentation shows:
- Why full-scale Board change is required immediately;
- Deckers’ failure to meet nearly every strategic priority it has set over the last five years;
- Board’s inability to hold management accountable for unacceptable performance, failed retail strategy and excessive overhead spending;
- Board’s failure to execute a capital allocation strategy;
- Board’s lack of transparency and pattern of irresponsible governance practices;
- The strong fashion, apparel, retail, marketing and financial expertise of Marcato’s nine highly-qualified nominees; and
- Marcato’s executable plan to create meaningful long-term stockholder value at Deckers.
Mick McGuire, managing partner of Marcato, said: “Deckers’ inability to deliver on its short- and long-term financial goals is unacceptable. We believe immediate change is needed at the Board level as a result of the incumbent directors’ lack of urgency and failure to provide proper oversight of management. Deckers stockholders deserve directors who have strong fashion, apparel, retail, marketing and financial expertise and who will act with urgency to put the Company back on a path to success.”
The investment group also responded to Decker’s statement detailing several actions it has taken following a lawsuit from Marcato over the board election. These include securing an amendment to Deckers’ credit facility to prevent an “event of default” from occurring should a majority of Marcatos’ candidates for the board win approval.
Commenting on Deckers’ actions in response to Marcato’s litigation, McGuire added: “We are pleased that Deckers has taken the actions we asked for privately in October to ensure stockholders would not be harmed by exercising their right to freely choose directors. Had Deckers simply agreed to these steps initially, great expense and distraction would have been avoided. Instead, Deckers’ Board wasted stockholder resources to defend an indefensible position and yet again demonstrated their unwillingness to take action until after receiving pressure from stockholders. It is unfortunate that we had to resort to filing litigation in Delaware in the first place to protect stockholders’ rights.”
