No doubt, there are many shareholder activists. But with Eric Jackson -- who manages Ironfire Capital LLC -- he is a bit different. That is, he uses social media, like Google Inc (Nasdaq: GOOG)'s YouTube, to help with his campaigns against companies like Yahoo! Inc. (Nasdaq: YHOO) and Motorola, Inc. (NYSE: MOT).

Well, I recently had a chance to interview him:

Why did you setup your fund? What's your take on shareholder activism?

After last June's Yahoo! annual meeting, when they changed CEOs following a high "against" vote by shareholders towards the current board, several friends and supporters encouraged me to think about setting up a fund. Frankly, they and I were a little surprised what I had been able to accomplish owning only 96 shares of the company. Many people had told me it was a waste of time and I had no chance of gaining support for an alternate "Plan B" for Yahoo! But we showed that the quality of ideas matter more to other shareholders than the quantity of shares owned. My hard costs were negligible for the campaign: a $30 webcam and a couple of JetBlue tickets to California. Several people said: "You need to do this on a larger scale." Ironfire Capital will allow me to do that.

Shareholder activists use a variety of tools to combat lagging companies, such as proxy fights, litigation and so on.

With the growth of social media, we are now seeing new approaches, and one of the innovators is Eric Jackson.

He is using Google (NASDAQ: GOOG)'s YouTube to confront a variety of companies, such as Yahoo! (NASDAQ: YHOO). In fact, he was a key factor in the company's shareholder meeting last year (example here). Keep in mind that Yahoo's CEO, Terry Semel, soon left the company.

Well, according to a piece in FINalternatives.com, Jackson now has his own hedge fund, called Ironfire Capital.

Jackson 's approach isn't completely hostile. In the early stages, he tries to work with a target, but if that doesn't work, he mobilizes the forces of the Internet. And as we've seen lately, that can be quite powerful.

Tom Taulli is the author of various books, including The Complete M&A Handbook and The Edgar Online Guide to Decoding Financial Statements. He also operates DealProfiles.com.

A pair of lawsuits seeking class-action status accuse Hilton Hotels (NYSE: HLT) management of breaching their fiduciary responsibility to shareholders when they agreed to sell the company to The Blackstone Group (NYSE: BX) for $20.1 billion. The investors claim the size of the offer was inadequate, and the $560 million break-up fee Hilton will have to pay Blackstone if it backs our of the deal is excessive. The amount is so large they contend, that it effectively guarantees that the private equity firm will go home with the prize.

There are a couple of interesting things about this. First, the break-up fee does seem excessive. The idea of a break-up fee, ideally, is to compensate the prospective buyer for its time/use of resources if a deal fails to go through. The $560 million figure would give Blackstone a huge windfall if the deal fails to go through. While the lawsuit is unlikely to go anywhere, I would ask Hilton why such a large break-up fee was necessary.

Second, this shareholder angst may be one of the factors that will lead to the decline of the buyout boom. In recent months it seems, shareholders have grown increasingly feisty in taking on buyout offers they deem too low. This wave of shareholder activism, which often leads to higher buyout prices, can cut into the private equity firms' margin for error.

But this is probably a good thing: If a private equity firm can take a company private and make a ton of money, it might make more sense for the company to stay public and provide that value to shareholders.

Perhaps 2007 is the year of shareholder activism, but if the resolutions passed by stockholders are not binding, why bother? And, that being said, it certainly is not much of a revolution.

Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE: VZ) was the latest company to report that its shareholders had passed a proposal to give them a say in executive compensation. It took two weeks to count all of the votes and the proposal made it by with a thin 50.18% margin. It could have been 99.9%. The resolution is not binding on the board or management in any way.

Verizon was good enough to say that it will review the resolution and "consider what actions to take." Which means that the company will do exactly nothing.

The proposal had some energetic supporters, including both of the large proxy advisory firms Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass, Lewis, & Co. A number of Verizon's large institutional shareholders also voted "yes" for the measure. All of that means that some real time and effort went into a vote that is essentially meaningless.

They might as well take the money spent on getting the resolution approved and bet it at the blackjack tables in Vegas.

Douglas A. McIntyre is a partner at 24/7 Wall St.

The Home Depot, Inc. (NYSE:HD) has made great strides in improving its image as a more shareholder-friendly company.

When former CEO Robert Nardelli resigned, it was widely reported that floor-level employees erupted in cheers. Then, investors cheered when the new CEO declined the board's first offer saying that it was too much money. He agreed to a relatively modest compensation package that does not guarantee him any severance package. Yesterday, Relational, an activist fund that owns 1% of the company, agreed to drop its proxy fight and took a seat on the board.

Today the Financial Times referred to a "new culture of improved corporate governance and greater focus on shareholder value." Highlighting the focus on shareholder value, new CEO Frank Blake's pay package is closely tied to the performance of the company's stock.

While none of this really has a lot to do with Home Depot the company, the operating performance has never really been a problem. Nardelli was able to grow earnings well during his tenure. With better corporate governance now in place, the stock may be gold.

Home-Depot Inc. (NYSE:HD) will need an army of PR consultants to restore its tattered public image among investors and the public. I say "army" because one PR agency alone can't take on that Herculean task.

Former CEO Robert Nardelli set new standards for boorish behavior toward investors at the chain's last annual meeting. Investors are outraged at his arrogance and now are trying to stop the company from paying him a $210 million golden parachute.

Critics argue that Nardelli was overpayed, especially when factoring in the poor performance of its stock. House Financial Services Chairman Rep. Barney Frank said Nardelli's severance package was "further confirmation of the need to deal with a pattern of CEO pay that appears to be out of control," Reuters said.

Home Depot is in a pickle with regards to Nardelli's pay. It's also found away to turn off consumers as well. I haven't set foot in my local Home Depot in years because the experience of shopping in Lowe's Companies Inc. (NYSE:LOW) is so much more pleasant. The Lowe's is about 20 miles further from my house than the Home Depot.

In the coming weeks, PR firm after PR firm will be pitching their services to Home Depot. There will be a reputation-building advertising campaign in the spirt of what Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE:WMT) is doing. Executives will probably hit the road to New York and Boston and listen to shareholders yell at them. Then the public will move onto the next scandal.

--Jonathan Berr is editor of http://www.desperateinvestors.com.

Richard Breeden knows how dysfunctional Corporate America can be. After all, he was once the Chairman of the SEC (from 1989 to 1993). After that, he has been an advisor to companies in trouble, such as Hollinger International and WorldCom (he terms this as "governance distress").

What's more, he has a fund that is focused on lagging companies. And this week the fund announced details of its 5.3% purchase of Applebee's (NASDAQ: APPB).

Basically, he is offering a slate of four new directors.

He also wrote a letter to the board of Applebee's that was fairly rough. He called the company's performance "dismal" and indicated that the return for investors over the past three years has been -13.4%.

Another issue: Breeden thinks that Applebee's management is not a model of corporate governance. For example, the bylaws were amended to require that any proposed directors be provided to the company within six months of the annual meeting.

But, of course, Breeden has some recommendations to turn things around: focus on franchising (which should free-up capital); cut operating expenses; and improve governance (such as reducing the number of insiders on the board).

No doubt, shareholder activism takes time (and doesn't always work). However, Breeden has some good suggestions -- and also a lot of credibility.

Tom Taulli is the author of various books, including the Complete M&A Handbook and operates DealProfiles.com.