Directors skip Home Depot’s annual shareholders’ meeting.

Bill Sjostrom —  27 May 2006

According to today’s W$J (see here), only a single director (the Chairman and CEO) attended Home Depot Inc.’s recent annual shareholders’ meeting, and he refused to answer questions as to why the other directors were not there. A commentor to this post about Halliburton’s annual shareholders’ meeting asserted that “[t]he purpose of the meeting is to allow shareholders the opportunity – just once a year – . . . to confront management if they so choose.â€? This may be the position of some shareholders, but it is not supported by state corporate law. As the Home Depot meeting demonstrates, there is no requirement that directors or other members of management even attend (although skipping the meeting is probably unwise from an investor relations standpoint). For more on the purpose of annual shareholders’ meetings, you’ll have to wait for my upcoming paper “The Case Against Mandatory Annual Director Elections and Shareholders’ Meetingsâ€? which I will post on SSRN in the near future.

3 responses to Directors skip Home Depot’s annual shareholders’ meeting.

    Broc Romanek 2 June 2006 at 4:53 am

    Per my blog today on, looks like Home Depot will never conduct a shareholders’ meeting again without their directors present. Maybe editorials like this one from the WSJ had something to do with it:

    “Accounts of Home Depot’s annual meeting brought back a vivid memory. Years ago, I was writing a cover for Business Week about corporate governance and shareholder activism. The photo editor found a marvelous picture to illustrate the article: Used big on the contents page, it showed (as I recall) the directors of United Technologies seated at the annual meeting — all nodding off or already asleep.

    Home Depot’s directors went one better: They didn’t show up at all. CEO Robert Nardelli, one of the most overpaid CEOs in the U.S., presided over an annual meeting at which no dissent was tolerated and not a single director was present. This affront to the company’s owners is unprecedented. Perhaps realizing its mistake, the company put out a statement on Friday that said, in part: “If the board of directors’ absence or the structure of our annual meeting offended any shareholder, that was certainly not our intent.” So what exactly was its intent? Was this the “commitment to strong corporate governance” that Home Depot claims on its Web site?

    It wasn’t supposed to be this way anymore. Shareholders have been counting their victories for years now. Directors, supposedly, are no longer rubber stamps or “parsley on the fish,” as Irving Olds, a former chairman of U.S. Steel, famously described their strictly ornamental nature decades ago. Shareholder activism has ousted many CEOs, given jobs to independent directors, placed outside directors in control of important board committees. It has, for better and for worse, attempted to force CEO pay to relate to performance. And every year, activist shareholders suggest new remedies to improve corporate governance; and their proposals — the sensible ones, at least — win a bigger proportion of votes that management ignores at its peril. And lately, hedge funds, private equity firms and some traditional institutional investors have added muscle to that of the public pension funds, union funds and individuals who’ve lead the activism movement.

    So the shocker at Home Depot came as a bracing reminder that the old days aren’t over — and may never be. The truth is that watchdogging corporate America is a job that never ends. It’s like slashing red tape, getting lean and mean, or doing the dishes. Somehow, there’s always a dish in the sink five minutes after you finish, always someone a manager just has to hire, always a procedure that slows down progress. The job takes eternal vigilance, and shareholders who care about their investments can’t afford to shirk it.

    Home Depot’s switchboard should have melted down after the meeting. Its behavior should do one more thing: It should give momentum to the shareholder proposals on this year’s ballots that require directors to receive a majority vote — not merely a plurality — for election. That would remind them exactly what their role is, and precisely who they represent.”

    Thanks, Broc Romanek

    Elizabeth Nowicki 27 May 2006 at 8:37 am

    OUTSTANDING – good catch, Professor! If I could only remember my WSJ logon information, I could actually read the article . . . . This sounds like an interesting WSJ piece.

Trackbacks and Pingbacks:

  1. TRUTH ON THE MARKET » Home Depot Directors - It’s not you, it’s *me.* - May 31, 2006

    […] Bill Sjostrom broke the news of the disgraceful absence of directors at the recent Home Depot shareholders’ meeting here.  I found the story so scandalous, however, that I did a bit more digging, just to see what sort of rationale for missing the meeting was proffered by the truant HD directors.  All I found was the following little nugget of PR wizardry from Home Depot: […]