Company: NGVT
Filing Date: 2025-03-24
Form Type: PRRN14A
Source: 0001539497-25-001025
Chunk: 12

Company: Ingevity Corp
Filing Date: 2025-03-24
Form: PRRN14A
Chunk 12
---
 and Segal and Dr. Sanchez were merely perfunctory and that the Company did not adequately consider the actual qualifications, skills and contributions that could be made by each of Messrs. Acero, Mather, and Segal and Dr. Sanchez to the Company’s Board.

On February 14, 2025, Ms. Blackwell emailed Mr. Mather requesting a time for a conference call.

On February 18, 2025, the Company reported its results for the year ended December 31, 2024. Mr. Fernandez-Moreno stated in the Company’s press release that “As part of the continued review of our portfolio of businesses, we recently announced plans to explore strategic alternatives for the Industrial Specialties product line and North Charleston CTO refinery. We believe this action will further strengthen the PC segment and enable us to focus our attention on higher growth and higher margin opportunities within our portfolio while improving the company’s earnings and cash flow.” Vision One believes that the sale of just the Industrial Specialties operations will significantly reduce the value of the remaining chemical assets, and that the Company should focus its efforts on its Performance Materials segment and consider selling its Performance Chemicals or “ PC” segment. Moreover, Vision One believes that the Company’s announcement of its intention “to explore strategic alternatives for the Industrial Specialties product line” reveals a predisposition to do just that, undermining and impeding exploration and consideration of better alternatives to increase share value, such as the sale of the PC segment, as advocated by Vision One.

On February 20, 2025, Ms. Blackwell informed Mr. Mather that the Board would not be nominating Messrs. Acero, Mather, and Segal and Dr. Sanchez. Ms. Blackwell suggested that the Board would consider allowing Vision One to present its ideas to the full Board and that Vision One may be able provide its thoughts on other potential director candidates already identified by the Board. Mr. Mather asked Ms. Blackwell to confirm that this was the Board’s final position. Ms. Blackwell responded that the Board would not be nominating Messrs. Acero, Mather, and Segal and Dr. Sanchez. Instead of engaging in a collaborative dialogue with Vision One, Ms. Blackwell merely reiterated that the Board would not be nominating the four nominees. Vision One views this as further evidence of the Board’s resistance to constructively engage with Vision One and that the Company has consistently demonstrated a reluctance to engage in substantive conversations with Vision One.

On