Unlock stock picks and a broker-level newsfeed that powers Wall Street. Upgrade Now
A Leading Proxy Advisory Firm Glass Lewis Recommends Nano Dimension Shareholders Vote "FOR" Both of Murchinson’s Independent Director Nominees

In This Article:

Glass Lewis States That Shareholders Should View Current Proxy Contest as a "One-Sided Affair" and That There is "Considerable and Persuasive Cause" For Investors to Support Further Change

Concludes That Murchinson’s Nominees Are "Credible and Independent" and Would be "Well Suited to Representing Shareholder Interests and Addressing Nano’s Extensive and Long-Standing Performance and Corporate Governance Issues"

Recommends Shareholders Also Reject CEO Yoav Stern’s Compensation Package and Support Murchinson’s Proposal to Declassify Board

TORONTO, November 24, 2024--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Murchinson Ltd. (collectively with its affiliates and funds it advises and/or sub-advises, "Murchinson" or "we"), a significant shareholder with approximately 7.1% of the outstanding shares of Nano Dimension Ltd. (NASDAQ: NNDM) ("Nano" or the "Company"), today announced that one of the leading independent proxy advisory firms, Glass, Lewis & Co. ("Glass Lewis"), has recommended shareholders vote FOR Murchinson’s highly qualified and independent nominees – Ofir Baharav and Robert Pons – for election to the Board of Directors (the "Board") at the Company’s Annual General Meeting of Shareholders (the "Annual Meeting") scheduled for December 6, 2024. Glass Lewis has also recommended that shareholders reject CEO Yoav Stern’s compensation package and support Murchinson’s proposal to declassify the Board.

In its report1, Glass Lewis concluded that:

  • "Largely consistent with our prior coverage of Nano, our current review suggests unaffiliated shareholders retain ample cause to view this redux tilt as a relatively one-sided affair."

  • "Indeed, we believe there remains a lengthy assortment of performance and oversight concerns at Nano, and would draw further attention to the fact that a recent court ruling firmly and discouragingly establishes that the existing board invested considerable time and shareholder capital fighting previously proposed changes otherwise heavily supported by Nano’s investors."

  • "These conditions leave us with the strong impression that shareholders would not be well served endorsing Nano’s nominees, particularly given the presence of alternate candidates which, Nano’s claims to the contrary, appear both credible and suitably independent."

Regarding Nano’s failed capital allocation and M&A strategy, Glass Lewis noted:

  • "Nano's limited structural transparency… results in poor visibility for investors and ambiguity around management's ability to effectively execute on a cornerstone of its stated strategy."