Activism Slows in the Third Quarter, but Deal Demands Take Center Stage

A review published through the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance describes fewer campaigns, a larger Asia-Pacific share and continued pressure on U.S. boards

Shareholder activism cooled in the third quarter of 2026, but the slowdown did not remove the United States from the center of the market. A review published through the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance reports 43 campaigns during the quarter, down 42% from 74 in the second quarter. The review characterizes that decline as reflecting normal seasonal slowdowns, rather than establishing a lasting retreat by activists.

Year-to-date activity totaled 179 campaigns, down 7% from 192 a year earlier and in line with the four-year average, according to the review. The number of activists tracked fell 14% to 99. Elliott launched the most campaigns, with 16. Together, those measures describe fewer participants and somewhat lower campaign volume, but they do not show how much capital activists committed or how individual investments performed.

For American boards and shareholders, the domestic figures remain substantial. The United States accounted for 91 campaigns, or 51% of global activity, maintaining its position as the primary market. Yet seven of the 10 largest campaign targets were outside the U.S., with South Korea’s Samsung Electronics the largest. Campaign frequency and the location of the largest targets thus tell different stories about where activist attention was concentrated.

Asia-Pacific reached a record 31% share, with 55 campaigns, the review reports. Japan led the region, alongside activity in Korea, Australia and Taiwan. Europe recorded 28 campaigns, down 15% year over year, with the review describing a third consecutive year of annual declines. The United Kingdom represented 54% of European activity. These regional shifts qualify any reading of the global slowdown as a uniform development across markets.

Activity was also concentrated by industry. The top five sectors accounted for 82% of campaigns, led by industrials at 30% and technology at 20%. The supplied findings do not identify the remaining three sectors. For U.S. readers assessing exposure, the reported concentration is more useful than assuming that the aggregate campaign count represents comparable pressure across every part of the corporate market.

Deal-related demands became especially prominent. Mergers and acquisitions accounted for 58% of third-quarter demands, bringing the year-to-date share to 44%, according to the review. A record 22% of demands specifically sought the sale of target companies, with Bath & Body Works, Knife River and Independence Realty cited as examples. These percentages concern demands, not completed transactions; they do not establish that targeted companies agreed to sell or that proposed deals closed.

Activists won 87 board seats year to date, 10% below the four-year average, with wins concentrated among Elliott, Starboard and Engine. The review also reports that 23 CEOs resigned following activist campaigns, nearly a quarter at mega-cap companies. The sequence is important, but it should not be overstated: the provided findings do not establish that activism was the sole cause of each executive departure.

The regulatory backdrop adds another dimension for American companies. The review says the SEC proposed rescinding Rule 14a-8 and amending Rule 14a-4 to expand discretionary voting authority on off-proxy proposals. It also describes proposals to modernize proxy delivery and shorten broker search timelines, plus clarification of Schedule 13G filer engagement. These are reported proposals and developments, not a basis for assuming every contemplated change has taken effect.

Proxy advisers faced scrutiny as well, including the Justice Department’s withdrawal of its 1987 ISS antitrust letter, Texas litigation against Glass Lewis and an SEC suit against ISS over a subpoena, according to the review. The broader picture is therefore not simply fewer campaigns: it is continued U.S. prominence, stronger deal demands and a contested regulatory environment, with outcomes still distinct from activist objectives.