Biglari Holdings(BH) CEO Sardar Biglari has launched another insurgency—this time against Jack in the Box(JACK). Through Biglari Capital, he quietly built a 9.9% stake in the fast-food chain and is now pursuing activist tactics aimed at reshaping the company’s future. But if history is any guide, shareholders should beware: Biglari’s interventions tend to center more on consolidating his own power than creating lasting value.
From Western Sizzlin to Steak n Shake, from Cracker Barrel(CBRL) to the now-defunct Maxim magazine, Biglari’s empire-building has left a trail of bold headlines, strategic confusion, and shareholder dilution. Is Jack in the Box next?
🍔 The Setup at Jack: Another Poison Pill, Another Fight
On July 2, Biglari filed a Schedule 13D, shifting from passive investor to active agitator. Jack’s board responded immediately with a limited-duration poison pill, triggered at 12.5% ownership, to thwart any stealth takeover (Restaurant Dive).
Jack’s management claims the pill protects its “Jack on Track” turnaround strategy: shuttering underperforming units, reevaluating its Del Taco acquisition, and focusing on cash flow. Biglari, as usual, hasn’t yet disclosed a concrete plan. That’s consistent with his playbook—apply pressure first, fill in the details later.
📉 A History of Shareholder Hostility, Not Alignment
If Biglari’s campaign feels familiar, it should. He has a long record of pushing into companies with ambitious rhetoric, only to implement governance structures that benefit himself.
Consider these greatest hits:
- At Biglari Holdings, he used corporate funds from Steak n Shake and Western Sizzlin to buy up BH shares—giving himself majority voting power while ordinary shareholders got little say.
- He structured BH’s governance like a moat, with dual share classes, heavy insider control, and a corporate name change from Steak n Shake to Biglari Holdings—a branding move driven by ego, not economics.
- His hedge fund, Biglari Capital, received management fees from BH’s own money, a classic case of double-dipping: paid both to run the company and to manage its portfolio.
- He even acquired Maxim magazine—a distressed men’s lifestyle brand—for reasons no one in foodservice could reasonably explain. We explored this odd detour in our earlier article.
In short: Biglari has repeatedly used public companies as personal vehicles, making governance more convoluted and shareholder-friendly outcomes more elusive.
🧃 Steak n Shake: The Signature That’s Gone Sour
Once hailed as his crowning achievement, Steak n Shake has become the cautionary tale of Biglari’s style. After taking over in 2008, he quickly restored profitability—but the glory didn’t last.
- Same-store sales fell for multiple consecutive years post-2015.
- Franchise expansion stalled; his $10,000 franchise model attracted unproven operators and yielded poor execution.
- By 2024, the chain had shrunk from over 600 stores to fewer than 420, and many remained closed or under renovation.
What began as a genuine turnaround ultimately turned into a slow bleed, one masked by spin but exposed in filings. Performance lagged even as Biglari increased his own compensation and entrenched control over the business. As we noted in “Sloppy Reporting by MarketWatch on Biglari Holdings,” analysts often misunderstood the structure—and overlooked the erosion beneath the surface.
🧮 What Does Biglari Want From Jack?
So far, Biglari has made no concrete proposals. But based on past campaigns, his likely goals include:
- Gaining board representation, particularly on committees tied to strategy and capital allocation.
- Pushing for Del Taco to be divested to raise cash.
- Advocating for aggressive share buybacks, which historically benefit large concentrated holders like himself.
- And possibly replacing leadership, especially if management resists cost-cutting.
The poison pill is likely to delay—if not derail—those efforts. But proxy season is around the corner, and Biglari knows how to weaponize it.
🚨 The Red Flags Investors Shouldn’t Ignore
| Red Flag | Why It Matters |
|---|---|
| Use of company funds for control | Western Sizzlin and BH cash funded Biglari’s rise—at shareholder expense |
| Paid twice to run the show | BH shareholders pay him as CEO and fund manager |
| Governance opacity | Complex structures insulate him from accountability |
| Dubious asset choices | Maxim, anyone? What’s next—Del Taco x Playboy collabs? |
| Performance doesn’t follow power | Steak n Shake is weaker today than it was pre-turnaround |
🧐 What Shareholders Should Demand
If Biglari wants support, he must offer more than disruption:
- Specific proposals—not just vague filings.
- Alignment on governance—one-share, one-vote.
- Transparency on capital plans—especially on Del Taco.
- Accountability for past failures—a real audit of Steak n Shake’s results under his watch.
Short-term gains on news of his stake aren’t strategy—they’re speculation. And speculation doesn’t pay dividends.
🔚 Final Thoughts: Buyer, Beware
Biglari is many things: aggressive, creative, persistent. But shareholder champion? That’s debatable. His track record shows a pattern of consolidating personal power, enriching himself via complex structures, and leaving actual performance ambiguous at best.
With Jack in the Box, shareholders must decide: is this the beginning of meaningful change—or just another case of Biglari trying to turn someone else’s company into his next vanity plate?
Stay skeptical.
Disclosure: The author owns no position in any stock mentioned