Simpson Oil Pressures Parkland Board After $55 Million Trading Loss and CEO Exit Delay

Crisis at the Pump: Simpson Oil Escalates Proxy War After Parkland’s $55M Trading Blunder and CEO Fallout

The Battle for Parkland: Inside a Proxy Revolt Shaped by Losses, Leadership Failures, and Shareholder Fury

GRAND CAYMAN, Cayman Islands — In the high-octane world of fuel distribution, few things rattle investors more than a sudden trading loss — except, perhaps, the appearance that leadership is dodging responsibility. And for Parkland Corporation, one of North America’s largest fuel retailers, the past week has brought both.

What began as a terse announcement about a $55 million trading loss tied to carbon credit speculation has ignited into a full-blown governance crisis. At the center of the storm: Parkland’s long-serving CEO Bob Espey, his delayed resignation, and a scathing rebuttal from the company’s largest shareholder, Simpson Oil Limited.

The Cayman-based holding company, which owns 19.8% of Parkland’s common shares, is accusing the board of “deliberate delay,” “desperation,” and “entrenchment” as it campaigns to replace a majority of Parkland’s board ahead of the May 6 annual general meeting. It’s a stunning rebuke, one that lays bare years of strategic missteps and a widening gulf between the boardroom and its investors.

Trading Loss or Tipping Point? The Carbon Credit Debacle That Unraveled the CEO’s Tenure

While management may have hoped for a quiet CEO transition, it was the market — not the board — that forced the issue into the open.

Parkland was compelled to pre-release first-quarter earnings due to a material trading loss stemming from speculative activity in the California carbon credit market. Industry observers estimate the loss at approximately $55 million, making it the second material blow in three years — following a $65 million hit in 2022 tied to U.S. trading operations.

For analysts closely following Parkland’s risk profile, the surprise wasn’t just the loss — it was the business unit involved.

“Carbon credits are not a core business for Parkland. The fact that such a speculative position was allowed to balloon into a material exposure speaks volumes about the oversight breakdown,” said one energy sector analyst familiar with the situation.

Simpson Oil, in its latest salvo, claims the trading fiasco was only disclosed early because the scale of the loss triggered legal disclosure requirements. Without this pressure, they allege, the board would have buried the news until just before the AGM — a strategic delay that would have rendered shareholder action moot.

A CEO’s Exit, or a Stalling Tactic? Espey’s Drawn-Out Departure Raises Alarms

Rather than removing Espey immediately, Parkland’s board has allowed him to remain in place through the end of 2025, or until a successor is appointed — whichever comes first. His continued presence during this transition has drawn sharp criticism from investors who see it as emblematic of the company’s inability to act decisively.

“Letting Espey 'work closely' with the new Executive Chair for the rest of the year isn’t a leadership change — it’s a holding pattern,” remarked a governance advisor watching the case. “This kind of soft landing is standard for executives in good standing. That’s not the situation here.”

Adding to shareholder unease is the appointment of Michael Jennings as Executive Chair — a figure whose performance history has also raised eyebrows. During his tenures at HF Sinclair, Jennings underperformed against peers by up to 13.2%, according to Bloomberg data cited in Simpson’s release.

Crucially, Parkland has yet to disclose the compensation structure for either Jennings’ new role or Espey’s drawn-out exit — a silence that has not gone unnoticed.

A Breakdown of Governance: Shareholder Discontent Boils Over

For Simpson Oil, the latest developments are merely symptoms of a deeper systemic failure. The company is waging a public campaign under the banner RefuelParkland.com, urging fellow investors to vote for all nine of its director nominees on the GOLD proxy card.

Among its many allegations, Simpson points to:

Years of missed earnings guidance
Escalating costs and flawed M&A strategy
High management turnover
Opaque succession planning
Refusal by the board to engage meaningfully with its largest shareholder

Despite being Parkland’s largest investor, Simpson says it has received no outreach from management or the board since it nominated its director slate — a silence the company frames as deliberate avoidance.

“This isn’t about Simpson Oil trying to take over Parkland — seven of the nine nominees have no affiliation with us,” said a person close to the campaign. “This is about restoring governance standards and shareholder trust.”

Competing Visions: Control Accusations and Strategic Paralysis

Parkland’s board has resisted Simpson Oil’s push, characterizing the campaign as a stealth bid for control without paying a premium. The board has offered three seats to Simpson nominees — far short of the majority Simpson seeks.

While Parkland has initiated a strategic review in response to investor unrest, Simpson dismisses the move as superficial and untethered from real change. The credibility of a board-led search for a new CEO, Simpson argues, is already compromised by years of poor oversight and failed planning.

Indeed, multiple internal candidates who might have stepped into the CEO role are no longer with the company — a casualty of what Simpson calls “a total and complete lack of oversight of CEO succession.”

“How can a board that failed to plan for leadership succession now be trusted to run a credible search process?” said another analyst. “You don’t get to miss the exit ramp and then offer to drive.”

Investor Stakes: Why the May 6 AGM Could Redefine Parkland’s Future

The upcoming AGM is more than just a vote — it’s a referendum on Parkland’s governance and strategic direction. Institutional investors, already rattled by recent volatility, are watching closely.

Parkland’s shares have rebounded slightly amid the activist pressure, but long-term underperformance remains a pressing concern. For many, the central question is whether the current board is equipped — or even willing — to make the tough calls required to reverse the company’s trajectory.

Simpson Oil has positioned its nominees as independent, experienced operators capable of conducting a genuine strategic review and securing the kind of leadership needed to drive value.

Notably, Simpson has already identified several CEO candidates and proposed Mark Davis — one of its nominees — as an interim CEO to ensure a stable transition. Whether shareholders accept this roadmap will depend on the persuasiveness of Simpson’s case in the final weeks leading up to the vote.

Beyond Parkland: A Test Case for Canadian Shareholder Rights

While the outcome at Parkland will directly impact investors and employees, the implications extend further — particularly in Canada’s corporate governance landscape.

This proxy battle lays bare structural tensions between activist investors and entrenched boards, and raises fundamental questions about how effectively Canadian companies respond to shareholder concerns. In an era where capital is increasingly mobile and accountability expected, the Parkland case could become a litmus test for governance reform.

“This is a board that has reacted only under legal or public pressure — not from internal discipline or foresight,” observed a legal advisor involved in prior proxy contests. “If Parkland’s board survives this, it sends a very dangerous message to the rest of the market.”

Will Shareholders Pull the Lever on Change?

As the clock ticks toward the May 6 AGM, the stakes for Parkland — and its board — could not be higher.

Simpson Oil’s campaign has laid bare a narrative of financial missteps, weak oversight, and delayed accountability. The board, for its part, continues to project continuity and stability, but faces mounting skepticism about its ability to chart a credible path forward.

At the heart of this battle is a simple but powerful investor question: Who do you trust to fix Parkland?

How to Vote

Visit www.RefuelParkland.com to learn more about the Simpson Oil campaign.
Vote for all nine nominees using the GOLD proxy card by May 1, 2025 at 5:00 p.m. Calgary time.
For assistance, contact Carson Proxy at:
1-800-530-5189 (Toll Free)
**416-751-2066 **
[email protected]

Disclosure

This report is based solely on publicly available materials provided by Simpson Oil as of April 16, 2025. No inference has been drawn from prior reporting or third-party sources not directly cited in the raw material.