Harley-Davidson faces board fight as activist investor wants CEO gone as iconic brand stalls

New York Post - Apr 16th, 2025

Investment firm H Partners has urged the shareholders of Harley-Davidson to remove three directors from the company's board, including CEO Jochen Zeitz. The firm holds a 9.1% stake in Harley-Davidson, making it the company's second-largest investor. This move follows H Partners' earlier call for Zeitz to step down immediately due to Harley's declining sales and stock performance. Since Zeitz became CEO in 2020, the company's share price has dropped 45% over the past year and 43% since April 2022, as the brand struggles to attract younger riders. H Partners plans to initiate a withhold-the-vote campaign targeting Zeitz, board members Norman Thomas Linebarger and Sara Levinson, holding them responsible for the erosion of shareholder value. Harley, valued at $2.7 billion, has not yet responded to the request for comment.

The current upheaval within Harley-Davidson's board comes amid broader challenges for the historic American motorcycle manufacturer. Harley has been grappling with 'cultural depletion,' as described by H Partners' Jared Dourdeville, who recently resigned from the board. The company faces criticism over its remote working policies and the departure of senior leaders. This isn't the first time Harley has faced boardroom challenges; five years ago, during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, it settled a dispute with Impala Asset Management. The upcoming annual meeting on May 14 will be critical as discussions around leadership and strategic direction intensify. The outcome could significantly influence Harley's ability to revitalize its brand and market position.

Harley Davidson H Partners Jochen Zeitz Board Of Directors Investment Firms Declining Sales Shareholder Value

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The news story provides a timely and largely accurate account of H Partners' challenge to Harley-Davidson's board, focusing on the investor's dissatisfaction with the company's leadership and financial performance. The article is clear and accessible, presenting the core issues in a straightforward manner. However, it lacks balance and depth, primarily presenting H Partners' perspective without responses from Harley-Davidson or independent analysts. This one-sidedness may limit its impact and engagement potential. The story could benefit from additional context and diverse viewpoints to enhance its public interest and influence on corporate governance discussions.

Accuracy

The story is largely accurate in presenting the key facts regarding H Partners' actions against Harley-Davidson's board. The claim about H Partners holding a 9.1% stake and urging the removal of three directors, including CEO Jochen Zeitz, aligns with verified sources. The details about Zeitz's tenure and expected retirement are also consistent with available information. Additionally, the reported 45% drop in Harley-Davidson's share price over the past year is corroborated by market data. However, the story could improve accuracy by providing more precise figures on the company's financial performance and confirming the exact timeline of past boardroom challenges, such as the one involving Impala Asset Management.

Balance

The article primarily presents the perspective of H Partners, emphasizing their dissatisfaction with Harley-Davidson's current leadership and their plans to remove certain board members. While it mentions H Partners' criticisms, the story lacks a balanced view by not including responses or perspectives from Harley-Davidson or the directors targeted for removal. The absence of comments from the company or other stakeholders leaves the narrative somewhat one-sided, potentially skewing public perception towards the activist investor's viewpoint.

Clarity

The article is written in clear and concise language, making it easy for readers to understand the main points. The structure is logical, starting with the most critical information about H Partners' demands and then providing background on Harley-Davidson's financial struggles. The tone remains neutral, focusing on factual reporting without emotive language. However, the story could benefit from additional context to clarify the potential impact of the board changes on Harley-Davidson's future.

Source quality

The story references H Partners, an influential stakeholder, and provides direct quotes from their statements, which adds credibility. However, it relies heavily on the perspective of this single source without corroborating information from independent experts or analysts. The lack of diverse sources, including financial analysts or industry experts, limits the depth of the analysis and understanding of the broader implications of the boardroom challenge.

Transparency

The article provides some transparency by quoting H Partners' statements and outlining their actions and motivations. However, it lacks detailed explanations of the methodology behind the claims, such as the specific criteria used by H Partners to judge the directors' performances. Additionally, the story does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest, such as financial ties between the reporter or the publication and the involved parties, which could impact the perceived impartiality.