Boaz Weinstein's Saba Capital sells stake in UK trust Keystone Positive Change
(Reuters) - U.S. activist investor Boaz Weinstein's Saba Capital has sold its nearly 30% stake in British investment trust Keystone Positive Change (KPC), a regulatory filing showed on Tuesday.
The Baillie Gifford-run investment trust is undergoing a planned liquidation under which shareholders have the option of a cash exit or the opportunity to roll over into another Baillie Gifford managed fund.
The filing on Tuesday showed that on March 28, Saba Capital management's voting rights in KPC dropped to nil, from about 29.65%, but did not disclose any other transaction details.
KPC was one of seven targets of Saba in the UK, where it was waging a campaign to overhaul their boards over performance it labelled as "underwhelming" and "disastrous".
In December, the U.S. hedge fund sought to overhaul the boards of the trusts but six of the seven trusts, including KPC, rejected its proposal and publicly hit back at Saba Capital, calling its efforts opportunistic and not in the interests of broader shareholders.
KPC was already in the process of winding itself down after a long bout of underperformance, and announced plans to go ahead with the liquidation after shareholders rejected Saba's attempted efforts to gain control.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Private sector wages should not be the business of Government
For far too long, British politicians have created laws and systems that outsource decisions to the courts. All of this has been done with the best intentions, but too little consideration has been given to the unintended consequences, and the outcomes have been perverse. Thanks to a spate of absurd rulings, including the Albanian criminal allowed to stay in the UK partly because his son will not eat foreign chicken nuggets, many are aware of the impact on efforts to control our borders. But the problem is much broader, impacting everything from planning to energy. Increasingly, tribunal judgments are even telling businesses what they should pay their workers. If that sounds crazy, it's because it is. All jobs are different; all people are different too. In theory, setting pay is hard, because the pros and cons of different roles depend on individual preferences. In practice it's easy. You don't have to sit down and work out a weighted aggregate of a job's different pros and cons to different people; the market does that for you. You can start hiring, and you'll find out pretty quickly how much you need to pay to fill a role. This is so obvious that it almost isn't worth saying. But it's not what our laws say. The Equality Act, passed in 2010, mandates 'equal pay for equal work', doubling down on the Equal Pay Act of 1970. But what is 'equal work'? According to the Equality Act, it isn't where two people do the same job. It's not even where two people do similar jobs. In fact, the Equality Act says, the only way to tell if two jobs are 'equal' is to conduct a 'job evaluation study'. Rather than letting the job market determine fair pay, bureaucrats and judges use a host of arbitrary criteria to decide what a role is worth. What does that look like in practice? Last August, a six-year case concluded against the retailer Next. The company was sued by three women, current and former workers, who insisted that store staff (mostly women) should be paid as much as warehouse workers (slight majority male). Any of the store staff could have moved to the warehouse if they wanted more money. In fact, Next were desperate for them to – the company had a recruitment drive for the warehouse among store employees. But very few people wanted those roles because working on the shop floor was pleasant and working in the warehouse was not. One of the women who brought the case admitted that she would only have considered moving to the warehouse for 'a lot more money.' Incredibly, Next lost. The court decided the two roles should be paid the same. The same thing is happening to Asda. And Birmingham council was effectively bankrupted by an equal pay claim brought by (mostly female) cleaners complaining they weren't paid as much as the (mostly male) binmen. We should be grateful anyone is willing to do work that's backbreaking, dirty or dangerous. They deserve to be paid fairly; often more than people who don't want to do that. But now bureaucrats have come in to fix what isn't broken and insist that what is fair is actually unfair. This undermines our economy and it needs to stop. Katie Lam is the Conservative MP for Weald of Kent Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The benefits system is out of control
The decision to axe the winter fuel payment for most pensioners must rank among the most ill-judged policies introduced by a Chancellor in recent times, and there is strong competition for that accolade. Rachel Reeves made the decision shortly after taking office because she said it was necessary to help plug a £22 billion 'black hole' she had discovered in the nation's finances. Her argument might have had some merit had she not then blown much of the savings on pay rises for train drivers and public sector workers. The juxtaposition of help for Labour's union allies while pensioners shivered rapidly became toxic for the Government, generating one of the fastest reversals of support for any new administration. In the end, with Reform advancing in the polls – and pledging to restore the payment – Sir Keir Starmer ordered a screeching U-turn which the Government maintains is possible because the economy is doing so well, as if anyone believes that. Now, instead of around 1.5 million older people on pensioner credit receiving the payment, it will be paid to about nine million OAPs with an income below £35,000. Why this figure has been chosen is as much a mystery as other 'cliff edge' sums that abound in our overly complex tax and benefit system. Indeed, this U-turn just makes it even more convoluted. Everyone will receive the payment but it will then be clawed back from an estimated two million people earning more than the £35,000 threshold via PAYE or a tax return. In other words, yet more red tape will be imposed to make a quarter of pensioners return an allowance that began life in 1997 as a universal benefit. Although many better-off pensioners often said they did not need the money, and many gave it to charity every Christmas, at least it was straightforward. To some extent so was limiting it to people on pensioner credit, since that is already linked to income. But what is now proposed is a dog's breakfast, with opt-outs and other implications still to be resolved. Tomorrow, Ms Reeves will unveil her spending plans for the next four years. She is being urged to get a grip on the rapidly expanding benefits budget; but if this experience is to be our guide, there is little chance that it will ever be reined in. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Whole Foods' distributor faces apparent cyberattack
United Natural Foods Inc., the primary distributor for Whole Foods, said Monday it had to take some of its systems offline after an apparent cyberattack. Why it matters: In the short-term, the company might not be able to fully fulfill customers' orders as it investigates the potential hack. Driving the news: United Natural Foods said in an SEC filing that it noticed "unauthorized activity" on some of its IT systems on Friday, prompting the company to proactively shut down some of its systems and call in law enforcement and third-party cybersecurity investigators. It's unclear when those systems will be back up and running — or what kind of incident spurred the shutdowns. United Natural Foods said in a statement on its website that it is working closely with their customers and suppliers to "minimize disruptions as much as possible" in the short-term. Threat level: News of the possible cyberattack comes as a group of ransomware hackers, who wreaked havoc on British retailers last month, started turning their attention to American companies. State of play: United Natural Foods works with more than 30,000 retail locations across North America to supply them with a variety of fresh, branded and private-label grocery items, according to its website. Last year, the company signed an eight-year extension of its deal with Amazon-owned Whole Foods to be the health-focused supermarket's primary distributor. Past cyberattacks on food distributors have prompted customers to get savvy about how they sell their supplies or how to temporarily pivot to other distributors to keep food on shelves. A Whole Foods spokesperson told Axios in an email that the company is "working to restock our shelves as quickly as possible and apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused for customers."
