Key Takeaways
- • Saba Capital, with a 29% stake in Baillie Gifford US Growth Trust (£751m AUM), nearly ousted the entire board at the annual general meeting, securing 48.7% of votes against chair Tom Burnet and similar opposition to three other non-executive directors, falling just short of the 50% threshold needed for removal.
- • Board support for directors collapsed dramatically from 65.6% at an extraordinary general meeting in February 2026 to just 51.1% at the September AGM, demonstrating significant shareholder sentiment shift despite Saba failing to put forward replacement candidates at this vote.
- • Saba's campaign represents an escalation eight months after a previous failed takeover attempt; the hedge fund has since established positions in dozens of London-listed closed-end funds and filed intentions to launch an ETF to further its discount-hunting strategy across the sector.
- • The near-miss creates legal and governance risk for the trust; board chair Burnet highlighted that complete removal would have breached the Companies Act, UK listing rules, and the trust's articles of association, creating "significant consequences for all shareholders."
- • Independent non-Saba shareholders have shown resilience in defending incumbent management, with 98.5% support in February declining to 51.1% support by September, suggesting Saba's messaging is gaining traction despite still falling short of removal thresholds.
Summary
Activist hedge fund Saba Capital mounted a renewed assault on Baillie Gifford US Growth Trust's board at its annual general meeting in September 2026, nearly succeeding in removing the entire board despite holding no replacement candidates in waiting. Leveraging its 29% stake in the £751 million investment trust, Saba voted against the re-election of chair Tom Burnet and three fellow non-executive directors—Sue Inglis, Graham Paterson, and Chris van der Kuyl. With a turnout of just under 59%, the opposition votes reached 48.7% against Burnet and similar levels against other directors, resulting in their narrow re-election with marginally above 51% support.
This outcome represents a dramatic erosion of board support compared to Saba's previous extraordinary general meeting in February 2026, where the same directors received 65.6% backing despite Saba putting forward nominees for election. At that earlier vote, 98.5% of independent shareholders rallied behind the incumbent board, reflecting broad shareholder confidence in management. The September result suggests that even without placing replacement candidates on the ballot, Saba has successfully shifted investor sentiment through its messaging regarding underperformance and perceived misalignment between shareholder and manager interests.
Board chair Burnet publicly attacked Saba's tactics, characterizing the vote as "disappointing" and highlighting the governance consequences of a complete board removal. Had Saba succeeded, Burnet noted, the trust would have faced breach of the Companies Act, UK listing rules, and its own articles of association—creating material legal and operational risk for all shareholders. This governance vulnerability underscores the structural challenge facing closed-end fund boards when activist investors accumulate substantial positions without constructive engagement.
Saba's campaign extends well beyond Baillie Gifford US Growth. The hedge fund has established significant positions across dozens of London-listed closed-end funds trading at wide discounts to net asset value and filed regulatory notice of its intention to launch a dedicated ETF targeting undervalued closed-end funds. This broader strategy positions Saba as a systematic player in the sector rather than a one-off activist intervention, with implications for fund governance and management accountability across the listed investment trust universe.
This outcome represents a dramatic erosion of board support compared to Saba's previous extraordinary general meeting in February 2026, where the same directors received 65.6% backing despite Saba putting forward nominees for election. At that earlier vote, 98.5% of independent shareholders rallied behind the incumbent board, reflecting broad shareholder confidence in management. The September result suggests that even without placing replacement candidates on the ballot, Saba has successfully shifted investor sentiment through its messaging regarding underperformance and perceived misalignment between shareholder and manager interests.
Board chair Burnet publicly attacked Saba's tactics, characterizing the vote as "disappointing" and highlighting the governance consequences of a complete board removal. Had Saba succeeded, Burnet noted, the trust would have faced breach of the Companies Act, UK listing rules, and its own articles of association—creating material legal and operational risk for all shareholders. This governance vulnerability underscores the structural challenge facing closed-end fund boards when activist investors accumulate substantial positions without constructive engagement.
Saba's campaign extends well beyond Baillie Gifford US Growth. The hedge fund has established significant positions across dozens of London-listed closed-end funds trading at wide discounts to net asset value and filed regulatory notice of its intention to launch a dedicated ETF targeting undervalued closed-end funds. This broader strategy positions Saba as a systematic player in the sector rather than a one-off activist intervention, with implications for fund governance and management accountability across the listed investment trust universe.
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.