Cullen

Cullen Capital Management, LLC disclosed the sale of 6,565,339 shares of Kenvue (KVUE -0.67%) for the period ended Q2 2025. The transaction was valued at an estimated $149.46 million.

What happened

Cullen Capital Management, LLC reported in a September 30, 2025SEC filingthat it reduced its position in Kenvue by 6,565,339 shares during Q2 2025. The estimated value of the shares sold was $149.46 million, based on the average closing price for the quarter. After the trade, Cullen retained 2,484,940 shares valued at $52.01 million as of Q2 2025.

What else to know

The fund trimmed its Kenvue stake, which now represents 0.6% of 13F assets under management as of June 30, 2025.

Top holdings after the filing:

• JPM: $303.61 million (3.5% of AUM) as of Q2 2025.
• CSCO: $279,989,672 (3.1889% of AUM) as of June 30, 2025.
• BAC: $260,614,250 (2.9682% of AUM) as of June 30, 2025.
• NVS: $253.74 million (2.9% of AUM) as of 2025-06-30.
• DUK: $241,854,363 (2.7545% of AUM) as of June 30, 2025.

As of September 29, 2025, shares were priced at $16.34, down 29.4% over the past year, lagging the S&P 500 by 42.63 percentage points

Company Overview

Company Snapshot

Kenvue Inc. generates revenue through a diversified portfolio of consumer health products, including over-the-counter medicines, skin and beauty care, and essential health items under brands such as Tylenol, Neutrogena, and Listerine.

The company operates worldwide through three segments: Self Care, Skin Health and Beauty, and Essential Health.

Kenvue Inc. offers healthcare, personal care, and wellness products globally.

Kenvue Inc. is a global consumer health company with a broad portfolio of well-established brands and a strong presence in the over-the-counter and personal care markets. Its strategic focus on essential health and self-care positions it competitively within the consumer defensive sector.

Foolish take

Cullen Capital reduced Kenvue’s stake to 0.6% of assets under management after selling 6.6 million shares. This is notable because KVUE stock has fallen nearly 30% over the past year, and has badly lagged the S&P 500 by about 43 percentage points.

Institutions trim for many reasons, from portfolio rebalancing to risk control. Still, the consumer health sector is typically defensive, and KVUE’s underperformance shows that not all staples are immune to market headwinds. Kenvue continues to generate $1.4 billion in profit and offers a 5.07% dividend yield, underscoring its appeal to income-focused investors.

Looking ahead, the key question lies in whether this weakness reflects turbulence or a deeper challenge to Kenvue’s growth and margin profile. Investors should monitor whether Kenvue can deliver stabilized earnings and sustain its dividend. If not, more institutions may follow Cullen’s lead.

Glossary

13F assets under management (AUM):The total value of securities reported by institutional investment managers in quarterly SEC Form 13F filings.
Dividend yield:The annual dividend payment divided by the stock’s current price, expressed as a percentage.
Quarter (Q2 2025):The second three-month period of a company’s fiscal year, here referring to April–June 2025.
Top holdings:The largest investments in a fund’s portfolio, typically by market value or percentage of assets.
Consumer defensive sector:Industry group including companies providing essential goods, like food, beverages, and household products, less sensitive to economic cycles.
Over-the-counter medicines:Drugs available without a prescription, used to treat common health issues.
Portfolio:A collection of investments held by an individual or institution.
Lagging the S&P 500:Underperforming the S&P 500 index, meaning a lower return compared to this benchmark.
TTM:The 12-month period ending with the most recent quarterly report.

BALTIMORE — A federal judge on Tuesday threw out the Trump administration’s lawsuit against Maryland’s entire federal bench over an order by the chief judge that stopped the immediate deportation of migrants challenging their removals.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen granted a request by the judges to toss the case, saying to do otherwise “would run counter to overwhelming precedent, depart from longstanding constitutional tradition, and offend the rule of law.”

“In their wisdom, the Constitution’s framers joined three coordinate branches to establish a single sovereign,” Cullen wrote. “That structure may occasionally engender clashes between two branches and encroachment by one branch on another’s authority. But mediating those disputes must occur in a manner that respects the Judiciary’s constitutional role.”

The White House had no immediate comment.

Cullen was nominated to the federal bench by Trump in 2020. He serves in the Western District of Virginia, but he was tapped to oversee the case because all 15 of Maryland’s federal judges are named as defendants, a highly unusual circumstance that reflects the Republican administration’s harsh response to judges who slow or stop its policies.

Cullen expressed skepticism of the lawsuit during a hearing in August. He questioned why it was necessary for the Trump administration to sue all the judges as a means of challenging the order.

Signed by Chief Maryland District Judge George L. Russell III, the order prevents the Trump administration from immediately deporting any immigrants seeking review of their detention in Maryland district court. It blocks their removal until 4 p.m. on the second business day after their habeas corpus petition is filed.

The order says it aims to maintain existing conditions and the potential jurisdiction of the court, ensure immigrant petitioners are able to participate in court proceedings and access attorneys and give the government “fulsome opportunity to brief and present arguments in its defense.”

The Justice Department, which filed the suit in June, says the automatic pause violates a Supreme Court ruling and impedes the president’s authority to enforce immigration laws. The department has grown increasingly frustrated by rulings blocking Trump’s agenda, repeatedly accusing federal judges of improperly impeding his powers.

The lawsuit was an extraordinary legal maneuver, ratcheting up the administration’s fight with the federal judiciary.

Attorneys for the Maryland judges argued the lawsuit was intended to limit the power of the judiciary to review certain immigration proceedings while the Trump administration pursues a mass deportation agenda.

“The executive branch seeks to bring suit in the name of the United States against a co-equal branch of government,” attorney Paul Clement said during the hearing. “There really is no precursor for this suit”

Clement is a prominent conservative lawyer who served as solicitor general under Republican President George W. Bush. He listed several other avenues the administration could have taken to challenge the order, such as filing an appeal in an individual habeas case.

Justice Department attorney Elizabeth Themins Hedges said the government was simply seeking relief from a legal roadblock preventing effective immigration enforcement.

“The United States is a plaintiff here because the United States is being harmed,” she said.

In an amended order pausing deportations, Russell said the court had received an influx of habeas petitions after hours that “resulted in hurried and frustrating hearings in that obtaining clear and concrete information about the location and status of the petitioners is elusive.” Habeas petitions allow people to challenge their detention by the government.

Attorneys for the Trump administration accused the Maryland judges of prioritizing a regular schedule, writing in court documents that “a sense of frustration and a desire for greater convenience do not give Defendants license to flout the law.”

Among the judges named in the lawsuit is Paula Xinis, who found the Trump administration in March illegally deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador — a case that quickly became a flashpoint in Trump’s immigration crackdown. Abrego Garcia was held in a notorious Salvadoran megaprison, where he claims to have been beaten and tortured.

Trump has railed against unfavorable judicial rulings, and in one case called for the impeachment of a federal judge in Washington who ordered planeloads of deported immigrants to be turned around. In July, the Justice Department filed a misconduct complaint against the judge.

Skene writes for the Associated Press.

BALTIMORE — A judge on Wednesday questioned why it was necessary for the Trump administration to sue Maryland’s entire federal bench over an order that paused the immediate deportation of migrants challenging their removals.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen didn’t issue a ruling following a hearing in federal court in Baltimore, but he expressed skepticism about the administration’s extraordinary legal maneuver, which attorneys for the Maryland judges called completely unprecedented.

Cullen serves in the Western District of Virginia, but he was tapped to oversee the Baltimore case because all of Maryland’s 15 federal judges are named as defendants, a highly unusual circumstance that reflects the Republican administration’s aggressive response to courts that slow or stop its policies.

At issue in the lawsuit is an order signed by Chief Maryland District Judge George L. Russell III that prevents the administration from immediately deporting any immigrants seeking review of their detention in a Maryland federal court. The order blocks their removal until 4 p.m. on the second business day after their habeas corpus petition is filed.

The Justice Department, which filed the lawsuit in June, says the automatic pause impedes President Trump’s authority to enforce immigration laws.

But attorneys for the Maryland judges argue that the suit was intended to limit the power of the judiciary to review certain immigration proceedings while the administration pursues a mass deportation agenda.

“The executive branch seeks to bring suit in the name of the United States against a co-equal branch of government,” said Paul Clement, a prominent conservative lawyer who served as Republican President George W. Bush’s solicitor general. “There really is no precursor for this suit.”

Clement listed several other avenues the administration could have taken to challenge the order, such as filing an appeal in an individual habeas case.

Cullen also asked the government’s lawyers whether they had considered that alternative, which he said could have been more expeditious than suing all the judges. He also questioned what would happen if the administration accelerated its current approach and sued a federal appellate bench, or even the Supreme Court.

“I think you probably picked up on the fact that I have some skepticism,” Cullen told Justice Department attorney Elizabeth Themins Hedges when she stood to present the Trump administration’s case.

Hedges denied that the case would “open the floodgates” to similar lawsuits. She said the government is simply seeking relief from a legal roadblock preventing effective immigration enforcement.

“The United States is a plaintiff here because the United States is being harmed,” she said.

Cullen, who was nominated to the federal bench by Trump in 2019, said he would issue a ruling by Labor Day on whether to dismiss the lawsuit. If allowed to proceed, he could also grant the government’s request for a preliminary injunction that would block the Maryland federal bench from following the conditions of the chief judge’s order.

The automatic pause in deportation proceedings sought to maintain existing conditions and the potential jurisdiction of the court, ensure immigrant petitioners are able to participate in court proceedings and access attorneys and give the government “fulsome opportunity to brief and present arguments in its defense,” according to the order.

Russell also said the court had received an influx of habeas petitions after hours that “resulted in hurried and frustrating hearings in that obtaining clear and concrete information about the location and status of the petitioners is elusive.” Habeas petitions allow people to challenge their detention by the government.

The administration accused Maryland judges of prioritizing a regular schedule, saying in court documents that “a sense of frustration and a desire for greater convenience do not give Defendants license to flout the law.”

Among the judges named in the lawsuit is Paula Xinis, who found the administration illegally deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador in March — a case that quickly became a flashpoint in Trump’s immigration crackdown. Abrego Garcia was held in a notorious Salvadoran megaprison, where he claims to have been beaten and tortured.

The administration later brought Abrego Garcia back to the U.S. and charged him with human smuggling in Tennessee. His attorneys characterized the charge as an attempt to justify his erroneous deportation. Xinis recently prohibited the administration from taking Abrego Garcia into immediate immigration custody if he’s released from jail pending trial.

Skene writes for the Associated Press.