8/21/2036

Kaos Capital Demands Board Overhaul at Capricor Ahead of FDA Decision on DMD Therapy

BigGo Finance (08/21/36)

Capricor Therapeutics Inc. (CAPR) is facing an activist campaign from shareholder Kaos Capital, which is demanding immediate board changes, a cash-preservation plan, and the creation of an M&A committee just one day before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is scheduled to act on the company's experimental Duchenne muscular dystrophy therapy. Kaos Capital, a Miami-based investment firm that describes itself as a "significant and growing shareholder," issued a letter to fellow shareholders on August 21 calling for a meeting with the board within 15 business days. The firm said it intends to nominate two independent directors and push for a board-led M&A and Strategic Alternatives Committee chaired by a shareholder-backed director. The activist campaign lands at a precarious moment for Capricor. The FDA's action date on deramiocel, the company's cell therapy for DMD-related cardiomyopathy, is August 22. In June, an FDA advisory panel voted 9-3 against the drug's use for that indication, casting significant doubt over its approval prospects. Capricor shares were down approximately 2% at the time of the letter's release. In the letter signed by CEO Adam Arviv, Kaos argued that Capricor has become overly dependent on a single regulatory outcome and must take immediate steps to preserve capital while exploring acquisitions, licensing deals, and partnerships that could broaden its pipeline. The company reported $237.9 million in cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities as of June 30, down roughly $80.2 million from year-end 2025. First-half 2026 operating expenses totaled $79.7 million, including $23.5 million in general and administrative costs — approximately double the comparable 2025 figure, according to the letter. Kaos called for a formal Cash Preservation Plan that would include: a near-term freeze on nonessential spending; a zero-based review of G&A expenses; enhanced approval requirements for material commitments; and quarterly reporting on cost reductions, cash runway, and capital use. The firm also urged the board to retain independent legal advisers and commission a review of oversight, disclosure controls, contracting, compensation, and capital-allocation processes. Kaos cited "numerous legal matters and shareholder demands" disclosed in Capricor's public filings, including securities and derivative actions, a Section 220 books-and-records demand, a patent action, a distribution dispute, and employment-related claims. A further securities class action was filed against the company and certain officers in 2026. "This legal overhang carries cost, distraction, reputational risk, and governance consequences," the letter stated. Kaos emphasized it is not asking Capricor to abandon deramiocel, which it believes "may still have meaningful value for patients." Instead, the firm wants the company to use its cash and public-company platform to build a broader, multi-modality biotechnology enterprise. The proposed M&A committee should evaluate assets in inflammation, fibrosis, tissue repair, targeted delivery, and regenerative medicine, the letter said. Kaos specifically pointed to advanced small-molecule pharmacology targeting the NLRP3/inflammasome signaling pathway as one area of interest. "Conviction in a lead program is not a license for a Board to concentrate all of a public company's capital, risk, and future in a single regulatory outcome," Arviv wrote. The activist push comes as Capricor awaits the FDA's decision on deramiocel. The agency's action date is August 22, though the timeline has grown complicated. After the advisory committee's negative vote in June, Capricor said the FDA was willing to review an amendment containing 24-month Hope-3 data focused on upper-limb function. A new target date has not been formally announced. Roth Capital expects the FDA review could be extended by approximately three months to accommodate the additional data. Kaos said it is prepared to work constructively with the board but warned of escalation if its demands are not met. If the board does not confirm and convene the requested meeting within the specified timeframe, Kaos said it will begin seeking shareholder support to elect its two independent nominees, replace directors, and potentially pursue removal of senior management. "We do not take that step lightly, but continued inaction would leave shareholders no reasonable alternative," the letter read.

Read the article

9/4/2026

Cha Partners Says Refine's Largest Shareholder Tender Offer

BigGo Finance (09/04/26)

Cha Partners Asset Management has directly raised conflict-of-interest concerns over the largest shareholder's large-scale tender offer for Refine (377450.KQ). The fund contends that the tender offer price being pursued by Realty Fine falls far short of intrinsic value, and that because decision-makers overlap between the buyer and the target company, the benefits of resolving undervaluation accrue exclusively to the controlling shareholder. Cha Partners sent an open shareholder letter to Refine's board on the 4th, demanding that the company immediately review and approve a share buyback and cancellation of the same scale as Realty Fine's tender offer. The asset manager has been a long-term investor in Refine, holding shares through funds it has managed since 2023. The public demand comes after the board failed to act on two previous letters sent in February and April of this year proposing share buybacks. Realty Fine is currently conducting a tender offer to purchase up to 5.199 million Refine shares at 17,600 won per share, totaling approximately 91.5 billion won (approximately $67.7 million). The offer period runs through the 16th. Cha Partners first pointed to problems in the decision-making structure. Hyun Seung-yoon, CEO of Realty Fine, along with inside directors Sung Ik-hwan and Cho Ju-young, simultaneously serve as non-executive directors of Refine. In effect, key figures on the tender offeror's board also hold director positions at the target company. The asset manager stated: "With the same individuals in key decision-making positions on both the buyer and target company sides, it is difficult to find evidence that Refine's board conducted an independent comparative review of whether a fairer, more value-enhancing alternative exists for all shareholders." The fund is demanding that shareholders be informed whether conflict-of-interest prevention procedures actually functioned. Cha Partners also challenged the 17,600 won offer price itself. The fund argues that considering Refine's earnings power and cash holdings, the price falls significantly short of intrinsic value. As of the end of the first half of this year, Refine's cash and cash equivalents stood at approximately 190 billion won (approximately $140.6 million). This represents 66% of the company's market capitalization of approximately 290.5 billion won (approximately $215.0 million), based on the closing price of 16,760 won on the 3rd. In a situation where the company's cash alone accounts for two-thirds of its market cap, the tender offer price is far below that level, the fund contends. Comparison benchmarks were also presented. Realty Fine paid 27,159 won per share when it acquired its existing controlling stake, making the current tender offer price approximately 35% lower. The offer also falls short of Refine's IPO price of 21,000 won. Cha Partners explained that assuming the same 91.5 billion won is deployed, the effects of a tender offer versus a share buyback and cancellation differ markedly. If the controlling shareholder conducts a tender offer, the company's assets and number of shares outstanding remain unchanged. Only Realty Fine's economic interest increases as it acquires more undervalued shares, while the per-share intrinsic value for remaining shareholders stays the same. Conversely, if the company acquires and cancels its own shares under the same terms, the reduction in share count at a price below intrinsic value increases per-share value for all remaining shareholders in proportion to their ownership stakes. Realty Fine, as the largest shareholder, would also share in those benefits. The fund also rebutted the rationale of management control stability. If Refine acquires and cancels shares equivalent to 30% of outstanding shares and Realty Fine does not tender into the buyback, the controlling shareholder's stake would rise to approximately 68.5% without any additional capital outlay. The logic is that share cancellation alone can achieve the effect of strengthening management control. Cha Partners also directed criticism at Stonebridge Capital and LS Securities, which invested in Refine through Realty Fine as general partners (GPs). Stonebridge Capital is a firm that has publicly declared principles of responsible investing and stewardship codes. LS Securities, as a participant in the South Korean stewardship code, has also stated its commitment to enhancing the medium- and long-term interests of clients and investors and contributing to the advancement of capital markets. The asset manager warned: "If they choose a structure that concentrates economic benefits in the hands of the controlling shareholder by exploiting the undervaluation of a company they control, trust in fiduciary responsibility principles could be undermined." Cha Partners urged Refine's board to disclose three items to shareholders: whether the board reviewed the economic effects of alternatives such as the company's own share buyback and cancellation, whether it assessed the fairness of the tender offer price, and whether it established procedures to prevent conflicts of interest. The fund also presented specific criteria for the buyback price. It should be set above the tender offer price but below the intrinsic value estimated by the board. The fund also emphasized the time sensitivity. With the tender offer period running through the 16th, Cha Partners requested that Refine's board decide on the share buyback by the morning of the 14th and disclose the results to the market.

Read the article

9/4/2026

Major Shareholder Calls for Strategic Review, Board Changes at Hamden Tech Firm

Hartford Business (09/04/26) Bordonaro, Greg

A shareholder with a 5.1% stake in a Hamden-based maker of casino printers and food-service technology is pushing the company to reconsider its strategy and add new directors. Charles M. Gillman raised the concerns about TransAct Technologies Inc. (NASDAQ: TAC) in a filing Thursday with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. He owns 521,841 shares, purchased for approximately $2.45 million, according to the filing. TransAct’s products include printers that produce betting slips and casino vouchers, along with its BOHA line of food-service technology. BOHA’s products help restaurants and other food-service operators manage tasks such as food labeling, temperature monitoring and inventory. Gillman, an investor known for taking stakes in smaller publicly traded companies, said the BOHA business faces “unique and very complicated challenges” that require an immediate review. He wants TransAct to consider options for the business and add multiple directors with the experience needed to conduct that review. Gillman also encouraged other investors to contact TransAct’s board and consider calling a special shareholder meeting to elect additional directors. Gillman said he bought the shares as an investment and is not seeking control of the company. His concerns come as TransAct considers selling its casino and gaming business, which generated about 55% of the company’s revenue during the first half of 2026. TransAct announced in August that it had hired BofA Securities to evaluate options for that division as the company increases its focus on food-service technology. Gillman is the second shareholder this year to publicly question that strategy. Former longtime CEO Bart Shuldman said in April that TransAct faces strong competition in food-service software and should focus on its hardware products while working with established software companies. Shuldman also said an earlier review found that separating TransAct into two companies could produce greater value for shareholders. TransAct did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Read the article

9/4/2026

Lululemon Cuts Outlook Again After Another Tough Quarter for Sales

Wall Street Journal (09/04/26) Hamilton, Katherine

Lululemon Athletica (NASDAQ: LULU) cut its annual sales and earnings forecasts for the second time this year after another difficult quarter, particularly in North America. The company now expects full-year sales of $10.35 billion to $10.5 billion, down from $11 billion to $11.15 billion, while projected earnings per share fell to $9.48 to $9.73. Second-quarter revenue declined 4% to $2.42 billion, missing analysts’ expectations, while Americas sales dropped 8% and same-store sales fell 9%. Profit decreased to $329.2 million from $370.9 million a year earlier. Executives blamed inconsistent product launches, negative online sentiment, and increased competition from brands such as Alo and Vuori. Sales of core products, including leggings and women’s tops, also weakened as the company tried to reduce promotions and sell more merchandise at full price. Lululemon expects third-quarter revenue below Wall Street forecasts, adding to investor concerns. Shares fell 17% after the results and are down 42% this year. The company will welcome new CEO Heidi O’Neill next week, with investors hoping she can revive North American sales, strengthen core products, and restore the brand’s momentum. In the spring, Lululemon made peace with its founder Chip Wilson, who had spent years criticizing the company and trying to overhaul the board via a proxy fight. Wilson, who is Lululemon’s biggest shareholder, settled with the company in the spring after a long negotiation process. He agreed to sign a nondisparagement agreement in exchange for the right to name two board directors. After O’Neill was appointed as chief executive, shares dropped, as investors critiqued her tenure as a former Nike executive. Elliott Investment Management acquired a stake of over $1 billion in Lululemon in late 2025 to push for a brand turnaround, though Lululemon ultimately appointed O'Neill in April 2026.

Read the article