UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
SCHEDULE 14A
(Rule 14a-101)
SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION
Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Filed by the Registrant ☐ Filed by a Party other than the Registrant ☒
Check the appropriate box:
☐ | Preliminary Proxy Statement | |
☐ | Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2)) | |
☐ | Definitive Proxy Statement | |
☒ | Definitive Additional Materials | |
☐ | Soliciting material Pursuant to §240.14a-12 |
Automatic Data Processing, Inc.
(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)
William A. Ackman
Veronica M. Hagen
V. Paul Unruh
Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P.
PS Management GP, LLC
Pershing Square, L.P.
Pershing Square II, L.P.
Pershing Square International, Ltd.
Pershing Square Holdings, Ltd.
Pershing Square VI Master, L.P.
(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant)
Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):
☒ | No fee required. | |||
☐ | Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(4) and 0-11. | |||
1) | Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies:
| |||
2) | Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies:
| |||
3) | Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined):
| |||
4) | Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:
| |||
5) | Total fee paid:
| |||
☐ | Fee paid previously with preliminary materials. | |||
☐ | Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing. | |||
1) | Amount Previously Paid:
| |||
2) | Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.:
| |||
3) | Filing Party:
| |||
4) | Date Filed:
|
Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P. and certain affiliates (Pershing Square) posted the following material to www.ADPascending.com:
ADP Deconstructing ADPs Long-Term Plan ($ in millions, unless otherwise noted) KEY ASSUMPTIONS FY 2020E Reported Revenue $ 15,500 > Midpoint of managements long-term plan (Pg. 34) PEO Growth Rate (%) 13.0% > Midpoint of managements long-term plan (Pg. 34) FY 2020E Adjusted EBIT Margin (%) 21.5% > Midpoint of managements long-term plan (Pg. 35) ADP Method (Pg.60) ADP Long-Term Plan (Pg.34/35) Management Forecast Cumulative Change (%) FY 2011A FY 2017A FY 2020E 17-20 CAGR 2011 - 2017 2017 - 2020 MANAGEMENT REVENUE BRIDGE (Pg. 34) Revenue Integrated HCM Solutions (**Excludes Client Funds) NA $ 6,032 $ 6,853 4.3% 5-6% CAGR HRBPO Solution NA 736 1,034 12.0% 12-14% CAGR Global Solutions NA 1,750 2,084 6.0% 6-7% CAGR Employer Services (Operational) $ 6,191 $ 8,518 $ 9,971 5.4% NA PEO (Pass-Through) 1,182 2,628 3,793 13.0% NA PEO (Net Economic Revenue) 352 836 1,206 13.0% NA PEO $ 1,534 $ 3,464 $ 4,999 13.0% 12-14% CAGR Client Funds Interest 540 397 530 10.1% NA Revenue (Reported) $ 8,265 $ 12,380 $ 15,500 7.8% 7-9% CAGR Memo: PEO Pass-Through as % of Total PEO 77.1% 75.9% 75.9% MARGIN BRIDGE (Implied by Pg. 34 & 35) Revenue (Reported) $ 8,265 $ 12,380 $ 15,500 7.8% (-) PEO Pass-Through (1,182 ) (2,628 ) (3,793 ) 13.0% (-) Client Funds Interest (540 ) (397 ) (530 ) 10.1% Net Operational Revenue $ 6,543 $ 9,354 $ 11,177 6.1% of which, Employer Services $ 6,191 $ 8,518 $ 9,971 5.4% of which, PEO (Net) $ 352 $ 836 $ 1,206 13.0% Adjusted EBIT (As Reported) $ 1,638 $ 2,448 $ 3,333 10.8% (-) Client Funds Interest Revenue (540 ) (397 ) (530 ) 10.1% (-) Corporate Extended, Net (68 ) (34 ) (53 ) 16.4% Adjusted Net Operational Profit $ 1,030 $ 2,017 $ 2,750 10.9% of which, Employer Services $ 920 $ 1,617 $ 2,109 of which, PEO $ 110 $ 400 $ 641 3.10% Margins (%) Reported Margin (%) 19.8% 19.8% 21.5% 21-22% (0.05% ) 1.73% Net Operational Margin (%) (1) 15.7% 21.6% 24.6% *Claims ~500bps* 5.81% 3.04% >>> implied net operational margin expansion Employer Services Operational Margin (%) 14.9% 19.0% 21.1% 4.11% 2.17% Memo: Flow-Through Margin (%) Employer Services 29.9% 33.9% PEO (Net) 59.9% 65.0% Memo: PEO Pass-Through Drag to Reported Margins (%) Implied Reported Margins Assuming Constant PEO Pass-Throughs 22.4% 23.2% Implied PEO Pass-Through Drag to Report Margins (2.6% ) (1.7% ) 3.5-4.5% Cum. Drag Note: Blue font represents hard-code inputs based on historical / reported results, purple represents forward assumptions (informed by managements plan), green represents forward assumptions per PSCM. Source: ADP September 12th Presentation and SEC financials. (1): Net Operational Profit / Net Operational Revenue. Excludes Client Funds and PEO pass-through costs. ADP Deconstructing ADP's Long-Term Plan ($ in millions, unless otherwise noted) Note: Blue font represents hard-code inputs based on historical / reported results, purple represents forward assumptions (informed by management's plan), green represents forward assumptions per PSCM. Source: ADP September 12th Presentation and SEC financials. (1): Net Operational Profit / Net Operational Revenue. Excludes Client Funds and PEO pass-through costs. Implied based on other assumptions Management guidance calls for 5-6% (including growth in Client Funds)
Pershing Square posted the following material to their Twitter page relating to Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (the Company):
ADP Ascending
@ADPascending
Glass Lewiss independent analysis of $ADP
supports [the view] that ADP has not
delivered returns. #voteGOLD 1/2
7:20AM - 3 Nov 2017
ADP Ascending
@ADPascendmg
Ind. analysis further supports [the overall
thesis] that $ADP is not performing to its full
potential. #voteGOLD 2/2
7:20 AM 3 Nov 2017
Pershing Square posted the following material to their Facebook page relating to the Company:
ADP Ascending
Published
by Global Strategy Group [?] 2 mins
Glass Lewis, an independent proxy advisory firm, is recommending that ADP
shareholders vote FOR our transformation plan and FOR ALL THREE of our
board nominees on tne
GOLD PROXY CARD. See below for an excerpt
from Glass Lewiss recommendation.
(W)e believe Pershing Square has argued the more convincing case,
particularly that: (i)
ADP is underperforming its potential; (ii) ADPs historical
leadership position and scale advantages breed complacency with
incremental improvements that accrue relatively easily year after year; (iii)
ADP is not
keeping pace with smaller competitors in key market segments in
the evolving HCM industry; (iv) an inefficient corporate structu re and insular
culture restrain ADP from identifying and urgently responding to business
opportunities and
threats; and (v) ADPs performance can be significantly
improved, and shareholder returns enhanced, pursuant to a transformation
plan implemented in a prudent manner under the oversight of a partly
reconstituted board of
directors. In our view, the boards response, or lack
thereof, to the substance of Pershing Squares argument leaves much to be
desired by shareholders and, similarly, the boards stated operational and
financial plan
strikes us as being inadequate and undefiVhelming given the
substantial opportunity thoroughly detailed by Pershing Square: