Unlock stock picks and a broker-level newsfeed that powers Wall Street.

Marlton Partners Expresses Concern About the Proposed Merger of 180 Degree Capital Corp. and Mount Logan

In This Article:

Highlights Key Terms and Departures from Shareholder Interests

Questions Process and Motivations of 180 Degree Capital Corp.'s Board of Directors' Cavalier Rejection of the Alternative Source Capital Proposal

Highlights Need for Transparency from the TURN Board and a Fair Process to Allow Shareholders to Determine the Right Path Forward

CHICAGO, Feb. 11, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Marlton Partners L.P. (together with its affiliates and group members, "Marlton" or "we"), beneficial owners of approximately 4.6% of the outstanding stock of 180 Degree Capital Corp. (NASDAQ: TURN)(the "Company"), today issued the following statement expressing its concern about TURN's definitive merger agreement with Mount Logan Capital Inc. (Cboe Canada: MLC) ("Mount Logan") and the TURN Board of Directors' (the "Board") failure to engage with Source Capital (NYSE: SOR)("Source") regarding its January 24 merger proposal.

As we await review of the Preliminary Proxy, we are deeply concerned by TURN's definitive merger agreement with Mount Logan.1

First, TURN's Board and management are asking shareholders to approve a fundamental transformation – converting TURN from a closed-end fund regulated under The Investment Company Act of 1940 (the "'40 Act") into an alternative asset and insurance solutions company. In doing so, TURN will diverge from the corporate structure and strategy in which current shareholders invested while also stripping away crucial retail investor protections provided by the '40 Act structure.

Second, the Board has failed to provide shareholders an option to tender at net asset value (NAV), the most basic safeguard for shareholders in transactions of this nature, and one provided in almost every recent comparable deal in this space. When coupled with TURN's prolonged underperformance and total transformation of corporate structure, it makes not providing shareholders the option to receive cash at NAV even more unacceptable.

Further, the Board's cavalier rejection of the potentially superior January 24, 2025 merger proposal from Source Capital ("Source") 2 – which valued TURN at 101% of NAV – without ever engaging in a single discussion with Source, brings into question the process and motivations of the Board. If the Board were truly focused on maximizing shareholder value, it would have engaged with Source to meaningfully evaluate its proposal as a credible potential suitor.

The refusal to even speak with Source raises questions about whose interests are truly being served in this process. Could it be because TURN's management will continue employment with Mount Logan?3 Given these developments, there are legitimate concerns about whether the Special Committee overseeing the transaction acted with an appropriate level of diligence and impartiality. TURN shareholders deserve a transparent process run by a board that takes its fiduciary duty seriously, and that prioritizes maximizing value rather than advancing a predetermined outcome.