SpartanNash Addresses Director Nominations
SpartanNash (Nasdaq: SPTN) has responded to Macellum Advisors and Ancora Holdings Group's proposal to nominate three director candidates at its upcoming annual meeting. The Company emphasized its successful turnaround, achieving a 251% total shareholder return since 2019, and highlighted significant improvements in revenue and EBITDA. Despite extensive engagement, SpartanNash asserts Macellum's approach lacks substantive ideas and threatens the ongoing progress. The Board remains committed to long-term value creation and is open to constructive dialogue with shareholders.
- 251% total shareholder return (TSR) since summer 2019.
- 88% TSR since new management joined in September 2020.
- Increased revenue and adjusted EBITDA.
- Reduced long-term debt by $269 million over two fiscal years.
- Net long-term debt-to-adjusted-EBITDA ratio improved from 3.7x to 1.8x.
- Macellum nominated a control slate of directors while owning only 1,000 shares.
- Macellum's director nominations appear based on outdated information about the Company.
- Potential disruption to the ongoing transformation if Investor Group's nominees are elected.
Macellum originally nominated a control slate while owning just 1,000 shares in December and prior to any meaningful engagement; Ancora never contacted
Shareholders are not required to take any action at this time
The SpartanNash Board and management team are committed to moving the Company forward with a clear priority – driving long-term, sustainable value creation for shareholders. The Board is confident that the transformation strategy is working and is the best path to continue enhancing performance. The Company remains open-minded and receptive to constructive ideas, from any source, that will drive shareholder value.
Board Has Implemented Significant Change that is Driving Value
Over the past four years, the SpartanNash Board has overseen a comprehensive transformation, taking decisive action to enhance the composition of the Board while improving performance through executive leadership upgrades. During this time, the Company has increased revenue and adjusted EBITDA, effectively allocated capital to the business and to shareholders, and significantly de-levered its balance sheet.
In 2020, the Board recruited CEO
The Company’s strategy is delivering results, and the numbers speak for themselves: SpartanNash’s total shareholder return has been
During 2021, the Company generated substantial free cash flow, improved gross margins, delivered strong grocery retail comparable sales and significant supply chain improvements. This enabled
We are proud of what our entire organization accomplished during a pandemic and all that has been achieved while simultaneously reengineering the business from top to bottom.
Refreshed Board Best Suited to Oversee the Company’s Strategy
- As previously announced, the Board appointed three new directors last month as part of a deliberate and thorough refreshment process that began in the summer of 2021 with the assistance of a leading executive search firm. In connection with this refreshment, three current directors will not stand for reelection at the Company’s 2022 annual meeting.
-
Following the 2022 annual meeting, the Board will be composed of nine highly qualified directors, eight of whom are independent, including an independent Board Chair. In addition, with diversity as a priority at
SpartanNash , four of the Board’s directors will be diverse across race and gender and a majority of the Board will have joined since 2018.
While SpartanNash Sought Constructive Engagement, Macellum Prioritized a Proxy Contest and Ancora Never Contacted the Company
The SpartanNash Board and management team are confident that our strategy is the best path forward for value creation. We continue to meet with shareholders and welcome constructive ideas and discussions from any source. Accordingly, the Board and management actively engaged with Macellum since last fall, with eight calls or meetings including the Company’s first meeting with Macellum on
It seems that the Investor Group’s priority is a proxy contest, not constructive engagement with
November to February: Macellum Nominates Control Slate with Minimal Engagement and Understanding of SpartanNash’s Business
-
On
Dec. 8 , after only its second meeting with management, Macellum nominated a control slate of five director candidates, including two of its own principals. At that point, Macellum confirmed in its notice that it owned only 1,000 shares ofSpartanNash stock and had not presented an investment thesis or any clear objectives forSpartanNash . -
In its meetings with management in late 2021, Macellum conceded that it was still conducting basic research on
SpartanNash , and Macellum’s questions demonstrated a limited understanding of the Company’s industry and business. In the meetings,SpartanNash discussed Company performance and described the key programs related to our core capabilities: People, Operational Excellence and Insights That Drive Solutions. Macellum did not propose any ideas for consideration during these meetings. -
At the
Dec. 14 meeting, Macellum noted that it would follow up in early 2022, yet Macellum made no attempt to communicate or meet with the Company for the entire month of January. Macellum resumed its engagement only after the Company reached out following the announcement of its Board refreshment onFeb. 7 .
March: Macellum Demands Resolution Only on its Terms
-
On
March 1 , during a meeting with directors and management, Macellum presented specific views on the Company’s business for the first time since discussions began more than three months earlier. Many of these views were outdated and based on the Company’s performance under a former management team that has not been in place since mid-2019. Macellum’s presentation appeared designed to disregard the strong financial results achieved after the Board put a new leadership team in place. Nonetheless, the Board noted it would consider Macellum’s perspectives. - Only two days later, Macellum followed up with unreasonable demands, which included the prompt appointment of four of its five nominees to the Board, an agreement to review strategic alternatives, the formation of a committee to oversee the exploration of strategic alternatives – led by Macellum’s director designees – and a firm commitment to proceed with a sale-leaseback of a significant portion of the Company’s owned real estate.
- In an attempt to reach a constructive resolution, directors and management again met with Macellum to understand its concerns and discuss its demands. Despite the Board and management team already having strong grocery retail and distribution experience, the Company offered to interview two of Macellum’s candidates who have grocery retailing backgrounds for purposes of appointing one mutually agreeable candidate with this expertise. Macellum expressed strong dissatisfaction with this proposal – even refusing to allow the Company to interview its candidates – and did not offer an alternative suggestion or request.
-
On
March 9 , directors and management once again met with Macellum to discuss an enhanced settlement offer. The Company proposed, subject to full Board approval, to appoint one of Macellum’s candidates with grocery retail and distribution experience and to form a transformation committee of the Board to review certain aspects of the business, including strategic matters, which would include Macellum’s director designee. Macellum rejected the offer outright. -
On
March 18 , theInvestor Group leaked a shareholder letter to the media announcing its director nominations and demands.
Considering the timeline of engagement with Macellum and its surprising request for a control slate at a time when it owned only 1,000 shares, the Board and management team question whether the
Company Remains Committed to Value Creation
SpartanNash’s successful progress in its turnaround is the result of prudent actions by the Board and thoughtful strategic initiatives well executed by management. These actions are delivering significant business results and shareholder value. If appointed, the Investor Group’s three handpicked nominees threaten to derail the Company’s progress and risk the value of our shareholders’ investment.
We remain willing to engage with our shareholders and will continue to act in the best interests of the Company and all of our stakeholders, including our shareholders, Associates, customers, partners and communities. We are united in our focus on driving enhanced value creation.
About the 2022 Annual Meeting
The 2022 annual meeting of shareholders has not yet been scheduled and
Advisors
About
Forward-Looking Statements
The matters discussed in this press release include "forward-looking statements" about the plans, strategies, objectives, goals or expectations of the Company. These forward-looking statements are identifiable by words or phrases indicating that the Company or management “expects,” “anticipates,” “plans,” “believes,” or “estimates,” or that a particular occurrence or event “may,” “could,” “should,” “will” or “will likely” result, occur or be pursued or “continue” in the future, that the “outlook” or “trend” is toward a particular result or occurrence, that a development is an “opportunity,” “priority,” “strategy,” “focus,” that the Company is “positioned” for a particular result, or similarly stated expectations. Undue reliance should not be placed on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date made. There are many important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially. These risks and uncertainties include the Company's ability to compete in the highly competitive grocery distribution, retail grocery and military distribution industries; disruptions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic; the Company's ability to manage its private brand program for
Important Additional Information and Where to Find It
The Company intends to file a proxy statement on Schedule 14A, an accompanying WHITE proxy card and other relevant documents with the
Certain Information Regarding Participants to the Solicitation
The Company, its directors and certain of its executive officers are participants in the solicitation of proxies from the Company’s shareholders in connection with matters to be considered at the Company’s 2022 annual meeting of shareholders. Information regarding the direct and indirect interests, by security holdings or otherwise, of the Company’s directors and executive officers in the Company is included in the Company’s Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A for its 2021 annual meeting of shareholders, filed with the
Non-GAAP Financial Measures
This press release includes information regarding net long-term debt, adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization ("adjusted EBITDA"), and a net long-term debt to adjusted-EBITDA ratio. These are non-GAAP financial measures, as defined below, and are used by management to allocate resources, assess performance against its peers and evaluate overall performance. The Company believes these measures provide useful information for both management and its investors. The Company believes these non-GAAP measures are useful to investors because they provide additional understanding of the trends and special circumstances that affect its business. These measures provide useful supplemental information that helps investors to establish a basis for expected performance and the ability to evaluate actual results against that expectation. The measures, when considered in connection with GAAP results, can be used to assess the overall performance of the Company as well as assess the Company’s performance against its peers. These measures are also used as a basis for certain compensation programs sponsored by the Company. In addition, securities analysts, fund managers and other shareholders and stakeholders that communicate with the Company request its financial results in these adjusted formats.
Adjusted EBITDA for fiscal 2021 excludes, among other items, organizational realignment, severance associated with cost reduction initiatives and the transition impact of a new paid time off plan. Organizational realignment includes benefits for associates terminated as part of a leadership transition plan which do not meet the definition of a reduction-in-force. Adjusted EBITDA for fiscal year 2020 excludes, among other items, “Fresh Cut operating losses” subsequent to the decision to exit these operations, severance associated with cost reduction initiatives, organizational alignment costs, and fees paid to a third-party advisory firm associated with Project One Team, the Company’s initiative to drive growth while increasing efficiency and reducing costs. Adjusted EBITDA for fiscal year 2019 excludes, among other items, “Fresh Kitchen operating losses” subsequent to the decision to exit these operations at the beginning of the third quarter, costs associated with organizational realignment, which include significant changes to the Company's management team, and fees paid to a third-party advisory firm associated with Project One Team, the Company's initiative to drive growth while increasing efficiency and reducing costs. Each of these items are considered “non-operational” or “non-core” in nature. These measures were adjusted for the impact of the 53rd week in 2020 to provide better comparability to 2021 and 2019.
Table 1: Reconciliation of Net Earnings to Adjusted Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization (Adjusted EBITDA) (A Non-GAAP Financial Measure) (Unaudited) |
|||||||||
(In thousands) |
|
2021
|
|
2020
|
|
2019
|
|||
Net earnings |
$ |
73,751 |
|
|
75,914 |
|
|
5,742 |
|
Loss from discontinued operations, net of tax |
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
175 |
|
Income tax expense (benefit) |
|
24,906 |
|
|
9,450 |
|
|
(2,342 |
) |
Other expenses, net |
|
13,543 |
|
|
17,042 |
|
|
53,367 |
|
Operating earnings |
112,200 |
|
|
102,406 |
|
|
56,942 |
|
|
Adjustments: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
LIFO expense |
|
18,652 |
|
|
2,176 |
|
|
5,892 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
92,711 |
|
|
89,504 |
|
|
87,866 |
|
Acquisition and integration |
|
708 |
|
|
421 |
|
|
1,437 |
|
Restructuring and asset impairment, net |
|
2,886 |
|
|
24,398 |
|
|
13,050 |
|
Cloud computing amortization |
|
2,140 |
|
|
297 |
|
|
— |
|
Costs associated with Project One Team |
|
— |
|
|
493 |
|
|
5,428 |
|
Organizational realignment, net |
|
589 |
|
|
455 |
|
|
1,812 |
|
Severance associated with cost reduction initiatives |
|
423 |
|
|
5,154 |
|
|
— |
|
Stock-based compensation |
|
6,975 |
|
|
6,265 |
|
|
7,313 |
|
Stock warrant |
|
1,958 |
|
|
6,549 |
|
|
— |
|
Non-cash rent |
|
(4,059 |
) |
|
(4,733 |
) |
|
(5,622 |
) |
Fresh Cut operating losses |
|
— |
|
|
2,262 |
|
|
— |
|
(Gain) loss on disposal of assets |
|
(106 |
) |
|
3,330 |
|
|
— |
|
|
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
2,894 |
|
Expenses associated with tax planning strategies |
|
— |
|
|
82 |
|
|
— |
|
Paid time off transition adjustment |
|
(21,371 |
) |
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
Other non-cash charges |
|
— |
|
|
— |
|
|
933 |
|
Adjusted EBITDA |
|
213,706 |
|
|
239,059 |
|
|
177,945 |
|
53rd week |
|
— |
|
|
(4,246 |
) |
|
— |
|
Adjusted EBITDA, excluding 53rd week |
$ |
213,706 |
|
$ |
234,813 |
|
$ |
177,945 |
|
Notes: Adjusted Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization (“adjusted EBITDA”) is a non-GAAP operating financial measure that the Company defines as net earnings plus interest, discontinued operations, depreciation and amortization, and other non-cash items including share-based payments (equity awards measured in accordance with ASC 718, Stock Compensation, which include both stock-based compensation to employees and stock warrants issued to non-employees) and the LIFO provision, as well as adjustments for items that do not reflect the ongoing operating activities of the Company and costs associated with the closing of operational locations.
Adjusted EBITDA is not a measure of performance under accounting principles generally accepted in
Table 2: Reconciliation of Long-Term Debt and Finance Lease Obligations to Net Long-Term Debt (A Non-GAAP Financial Measure) (Unaudited) |
|||||||||
(In thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Current portion of long-term debt and finance lease liabilities |
$ |
6,334 |
|
$ |
5,135 |
|
$ |
6,349 |
|
Long-term debt and finance lease liabilities |
|
399,390 |
|
|
481,309 |
|
|
682,204 |
|
Total debt |
|
405,724 |
|
|
486,444 |
|
|
688,553 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
(10,666 |
) |
|
(19,903 |
) |
|
(24,172 |
) |
Net long-term debt |
$ |
395,058 |
|
$ |
466,541 |
|
$ |
664,381 |
|
Notes: Net long-term debt is a non-GAAP financial measure that is defined as long-term debt and finance lease obligations plus current maturities of long-term debt and finance lease obligations less cash and cash equivalents. The Company believes both management and its investors find the information useful because it reflects the amount of long-term debt obligations that are not covered by available cash and temporary investments. Net long-term debt is not a substitute for GAAP financial measures and may differ from similarly titled measures of other companies.
Table 3: Net Long-Term Debt to Adjusted EBITDA Ratio (A Non-GAAP Financial Measure) (Unaudited) |
|||||||||||
(In thousands) |
|
2021
|
|
2020
|
|
2019
|
|
||||
Net long-term debt |
$ |
395,058 |
$ |
466,541 |
$ |
664,381 |
|
||||
Adjusted EBITDA |
|
213,706 |
|
239,059 |
|
177,945 |
|
||||
Net long-term debt to adjusted EBITDA ratio |
|
1.8 |
x | 2.0 |
x | 3.7 |
x |
Notes: The net long-term debt to adjusted EBITDA ratio is a non-GAAP financial measure that is defined as net long-term debt divided by adjusted EBITDA. The net long-term debt to adjusted EBITDA ratio is not a substitute for GAAP financial measures and may differ from similarly titled measures of other companies.
_________________________
1 |
Source: FactSet as of |
|
2 |
Source: FactSet as of |
View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220318005300/en/
Investor Contacts:
SpartanNashIR@icrinc.com
Shareholders Contact:
Morrow Sodali
(800) 662-5200
Media Contact:
Senior Vice President, Communications
Adrienne.Chance@spartannash.com
press@spartannash.com
212-355-4449
Source:
FAQ
What is SpartanNash's stock symbol?
What is the total shareholder return for SpartanNash since 2019?
What financial improvements has SpartanNash made recently?