CEO

A Vote That Could Have Changed Everything — But Changed Nothing

Wednesday, June 10, 2026. The annual shareholder meeting of Target Corporation. One of America’s largest retailers, a chain known to families from Maine to California. Three proposals were on the agenda. One of them was a bombshell: a proposal to separate the roles of board chair and executive leadership. In simple terms, it would have removed Brian Cornell from the position of executive chair, leaving him on the board but without operational authority.

Some investors, particularly institutional shareholders, had been pushing for this change for years. Their argument was straightforward: “Cornell served as CEO for 11 years. He led the company through a period of success, but that success eventually faded. The stock has fallen by roughly half since 2021. Walmart and Costco have pulled ahead. It’s time for new leadership, and for the old leader to step aside without continuing to influence day-to-day operations.”

But shareholders saw things differently. According to Reuters, the proposal for an independent chair was rejected. Two other shareholder proposals—one calling for greater disclosure about pesticide use in private-label products and another addressing microfiber emissions—were also voted down. All board nominees were elected.

Cornell stays.

He will continue overseeing his successor, Mike Fiddelke, who became CEO in February 2026. Fiddelke has already pledged to invest $2 billion this year to improve inventory management and sharpen Target’s pricing strategy.

Yet one question remains: why did shareholders who have watched the stock struggle over recent years decide not to change the company’s leadership structure? And what does that say about Target’s future?

Brian Cornell: Architect of the Rise and Witness to the Decline

For those who do not closely follow the American retail industry, Brian Cornell is a legendary figure. He joined Target in 2014 when...

There are certain types of news in financial markets that hit like an electric shock. When Elliott Investment Management, one of the world’s most prominent and aggressive activist hedge funds, reveals a major stake in a company, it is never accidental. There is always a strategy, a plan, and a willingness to fight behind the move. On Tuesday, Elliott disclosed a stake worth more than A$1 billion in Northern Star Resources, the Australian gold miner. The company’s shares immediately surged more than 13%, reaching their highest level since mid-May.

This is a classic market reaction to the arrival of an activist investor: everyone knows Elliott will not sit quietly on the sidelines. It will push for change. And those changes typically lead to higher shareholder value.

Elliott Isn’t Just Visiting: What’s Behind the Stake Disclosure

Elliott Investment Management is not a passive fund that buys shares and waits quietly for dividends. It is an activist investor with a long history of successful campaigns against companies it believes are undervalued due to poor management. When Elliott takes a position, it usually means significant changes are coming—either voluntarily or under pressure.

In Northern Star’s case, Elliott wasted no time getting to the point. The fund stated that the gold miner should undertake a strategic review that could include a sale of the company. This is not merely a suggestion—it is effectively an ultimatum. Elliott believes Northern Star is undervalued and argues that the problem lies not in market conditions but in management execution.

The fund accused the company of “operational missteps” and “insufficient disclosure” compared with its peers. Put simply, other gold miners are operating more effectively and communicating more transparently, while Northern Star has, in Elliott’s view, obscured problems behind limited reporting.

The market clearly agreed. Shares jumped...