MediPharm Labs Fends Off Activist Investor Challenge, Shareholders Back Management Slate

Toronto, ON – November, 10, 2025 – MediPharm Labs Corp. successfully defended against a challenge from activist investor Apollo Technology Capital Corporation at its annual shareholder meeting, securing the election of all seven of its nominated directors. The outcome represents a decisive victory for the company’s management team, which had faced criticism from Apollo regarding its performance and strategic direction.

The battle for control of the boardroom followed months of escalating rhetoric, with Apollo accusing MediPharm’s leadership of overseeing significant shareholder value destruction and advocating for a “wholesale Board change.” The outcome suggests shareholders ultimately sided with the company's long-term vision, despite a substantial decline in share price over the past several years.

A Contentious Campaign

Apollo Technology Capital, holding roughly 3% of MediPharm's common stock, launched its proxy fight arguing that the company had lost over $1 billion in market capitalization since May 2019, citing failed operational strategies and excessive executive compensation. The activist investor nominated six candidates, including its CEO Regan McGee, to replace a majority of MediPharm’s directors.

However, MediPharm countered by raising questions about the qualifications of Apollo’s nominees and highlighting potential conflicts of interest. The company specifically pointed to McGee’s lack of direct experience in the cannabis or pharmaceutical industries, as well as the connection between another nominee, John Fowler, and Muskoka Grown, a current supplier to MediPharm Labs.

“This was a highly contested battle, and we are pleased with the outcome,” said a source close to MediPharm’s management, speaking on condition of anonymity. “Shareholders clearly recognized the value of our strategy and the experience of our team.”

Questioning the Nominees' Expertise

Beyond the headline battle, a deeper look at the nominees reveals key points of contention. MediPharm focused on raising doubts about the relevant expertise of Apollo’s slate. One notable point revolved around the lack of direct industry experience among several nominees. While Apollo emphasized turnaround and M&A experience, MediPharm argued that this wasn’t sufficient given the unique complexities of the rapidly evolving cannabis and pharmaceutical sectors.

“The cannabis industry isn't like any other,” explained an independent industry analyst who wished to remain anonymous. “Successful leadership requires a deep understanding of regulatory hurdles, cultivation science, and the specific needs of patients and consumers. Simply having turnaround experience doesn’t guarantee success in this market.”

Apollo, however, maintained that their nominees possessed the necessary skills to address MediPharm’s challenges. “Our nominees bring a wealth of experience in identifying and capitalizing on undervalued assets,” said a source close to Apollo, speaking on background. “We believe we have the right team to restore shareholder value.”

Conflicts of Interest and Interlocking Relationships

Another key area of contention centered on potential conflicts of interest. MediPharm highlighted the fact that John Fowler, a nominee put forward by Apollo, is the President of Muskoka Grown, a supplier to MediPharm. The company argued that this relationship could compromise Fowler’s objectivity if he were to join the board.

“It’s a clear conflict of interest,” said an anonymous legal expert specializing in corporate governance. “A director has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the company, and that duty could be compromised if they have a financial stake in a supplier.”

Apollo, however, dismissed these concerns, arguing that Fowler’s experience as a supplier would be valuable to the board. “John understands the supply chain and can help MediPharm improve its efficiency,” said a source close to Apollo. “There’s no conflict of interest, only valuable expertise.”

Furthermore, MediPharm alluded to “interlocking relationships” among Apollo’s nominees, suggesting hidden connections that could further compromise their independence. While the full extent of these connections remains unclear, the company’s allegations raised questions about the objectivity of Apollo’s slate.

Implications for the Cannabis Sector

The outcome of this proxy battle has implications beyond MediPharm Labs. It signals a degree of stability in the cannabis sector, demonstrating that shareholders are willing to support established management teams with clear strategic visions. However, it also suggests that activist investors will continue to challenge companies that are underperforming.

“This was a test case for the cannabis sector,” said the independent industry analyst. “It showed that shareholders aren’t easily swayed by short-term activist campaigns. They want to see a long-term vision and a clear path to profitability.”

The battle also highlights the increasing scrutiny of corporate governance in the cannabis industry. As the sector matures, investors are demanding greater transparency and accountability from company directors.

Looking Ahead

Following the successful defense of its board, MediPharm Labs is expected to focus on executing its existing strategy, which includes expanding its product portfolio, strengthening its supply chain, and pursuing strategic partnerships. The company is also committed to improving its financial performance and restoring shareholder value.

“We are grateful for the support of our shareholders,” said a source close to MediPharm’s management. “We are confident that we are on the right path, and we are committed to delivering long-term value.”

Apollo Technology Capital has yet to comment publicly on the outcome of the proxy battle. However, analysts expect the firm to continue to monitor MediPharm’s performance and potentially seek opportunities to influence the company’s direction in the future.