If the threat is that unloading a position will cause a dip in shareholder value of $X, but those actually in control believe their own thesis and operating model is worth more than $X, then they can choose to weather the storm, believing their way will negate the loss of $X.
If they really don't have an answer to the activist investor's thesis, then yea, they'll roll over.
But it completely ignores the commercial reality: 10% of your holdings making a move is sometimes enough to swing a board decision. Look at AGL in Australia and the recent play by Grok ventures. Nothing like 50% + 1. They moved the mountain.
You are conflating control with influence. Control is the ability to make a unilateral decision, consequences be damned. Influence is the ability to impose costs and benefits on a decision maker so that they do what you want
No disagree but also.. this is nitpicking. Everyone reading the flow knows what was meant here: change was effected by a significant minority of shareholders exerting influence. You would not be wrong saying colloquially "they were made to" or "had to" even though legally no force exists. Well clearly to a nitpicker you would be wrong, but half the room is now rolling their eyes.
Yes 10% of your company being sold at once would be alarming. Thing is TCI does not have anything like that much. They have ~0.5% of the equity and less than 0.5% of the votes.
