Key Takeaways
- • Saba Capital, holding 17%+ of Gore Street Energy Storage (GSF), is demanding the £244m battery fund publish full pricing details and auction methodology for the sale of Irish assets (Kilmarnock and Mucklagh projects) to a Gore Street Investment Management-affiliated fund, citing lack of transparency.
- • Saba has requisitioned an AGM vote calling for GSF's wind-up, arguing the status quo represents the true risk to shareholder value—specifically an "uncovered dividend funded by disposals at prices shareholders never see."
- • Gore Street's board has urged shareholders to vote against Saba's proposals, claiming they would guarantee "accelerated sales at a low price" and disrupt asset management strategy, while defending the recent Irish asset sale as competitively priced relative to NAV.
- • GSF's NAV has deteriorated significantly, with group NAV down approximately 15% in the last quarter alone, undermining the board's assurance that recent asset sales achieved "no less than values ascribed in the most recently published NAV."
- • First-half revenue reached USD4.8 million (up marginally from USD4.7 million year-over-year), suggesting limited operational momentum despite the activist pressure campaign.
Summary
Saba Capital Management is intensifying its campaign to reshape Gore Street Energy Storage Fund ahead of an upcoming annual general meeting, with the US hedge fund and co-activist RM Funds targeting what they characterize as opaque asset sales and deteriorating fund performance. Saba, which has increased its stake to over 18.1% of the £244m investment trust, has requisitioned a shareholder vote on winding up the fund, positioning itself as a counterweight to what it describes as value-destructive management practices.
The immediate flashpoint centers on Gore Street's recent disposal of two Irish battery storage assets—the Kilmarnock and Mucklagh projects—to a fund managed by Gore Street Investment Management, the company's own investment manager. Saba has rejected what it calls the board's "weak assurance" that the sale price met NAV benchmarks, arguing that without published pricing details and a transparent auction methodology managed by adviser Alexa Capital, shareholders cannot meaningfully evaluate the transaction. "A sale to a fund run by the company's own manager, at a price shareholders are not allowed to see, cannot be taken on faith," Saba stated, adding that disclosure carries negligible cost if the process was robust. This concern gains weight given GSF's substantial NAV deterioration—group NAV declined approximately 15% in the most recent quarter alone, suggesting that historical valuation benchmarks may not represent fair-market pricing.
Gore Street's board has mounted a vigorous defense, characterizing Saba's proposals as value-destructive and warning that forced wind-up would trigger accelerated asset sales at depressed prices. The board contends that the fund's strategy depends on disciplined, long-term asset management rather than quick liquidation. However, Saba's framing of the core issue—that the "real risk to value is the status quo, an uncovered dividend funded by disposals at prices shareholders never see"—has resonated with at least one significant co-activist, RM Funds. First-half performance metrics offer little ammunition for the board's defense: revenue reached only USD4.8 million, a marginal increase from USD4.7 million in the prior-year period, and the 27% NAV decline reported in full-year results underscores mounting investor concern about capital preservation and total return generation.
The dispute reflects broader governance tensions in closed-ended battery storage funds, where conflicts of interest between fund managers and investment vehicles can obscure transaction economics. Saba's insistence on disclosure and competitive process transparency sits at odds with Gore Street's operational discretion, creating a binary choice for shareholders: vote confidence in incumbent management's long-term vision or endorse activist pressure for immediate structural change.
The immediate flashpoint centers on Gore Street's recent disposal of two Irish battery storage assets—the Kilmarnock and Mucklagh projects—to a fund managed by Gore Street Investment Management, the company's own investment manager. Saba has rejected what it calls the board's "weak assurance" that the sale price met NAV benchmarks, arguing that without published pricing details and a transparent auction methodology managed by adviser Alexa Capital, shareholders cannot meaningfully evaluate the transaction. "A sale to a fund run by the company's own manager, at a price shareholders are not allowed to see, cannot be taken on faith," Saba stated, adding that disclosure carries negligible cost if the process was robust. This concern gains weight given GSF's substantial NAV deterioration—group NAV declined approximately 15% in the most recent quarter alone, suggesting that historical valuation benchmarks may not represent fair-market pricing.
Gore Street's board has mounted a vigorous defense, characterizing Saba's proposals as value-destructive and warning that forced wind-up would trigger accelerated asset sales at depressed prices. The board contends that the fund's strategy depends on disciplined, long-term asset management rather than quick liquidation. However, Saba's framing of the core issue—that the "real risk to value is the status quo, an uncovered dividend funded by disposals at prices shareholders never see"—has resonated with at least one significant co-activist, RM Funds. First-half performance metrics offer little ammunition for the board's defense: revenue reached only USD4.8 million, a marginal increase from USD4.7 million in the prior-year period, and the 27% NAV decline reported in full-year results underscores mounting investor concern about capital preservation and total return generation.
The dispute reflects broader governance tensions in closed-ended battery storage funds, where conflicts of interest between fund managers and investment vehicles can obscure transaction economics. Saba's insistence on disclosure and competitive process transparency sits at odds with Gore Street's operational discretion, creating a binary choice for shareholders: vote confidence in incumbent management's long-term vision or endorse activist pressure for immediate structural change.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.